[erlang-questions] On Pull Requests Comments

[Björn-Egil Dahlberg]

On 2013-10-21 20:04, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Bjorn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
>> Just to say why we create pull requests for most (all?) patches 
>> nowadays. 
> Should we skip sending mails to erlang-patches@ from now on?

No, we'll keep it as is for now. We at OTP would prefer Pull Requsts 
though, it's less of a hassle but erlang-patches is ok as well. Some 
people even insist on writing mail diff patches and we include them as 
well if they are totally hassle free and/or really significant.

>> We at OTP don't use GitHub for bug-tracking, we merely use GH as a
>> conduit to you, the community, and it seemed like the most effective
>> tool for us to do this. We can also automate certain things for it,
>> like doc and build testing. Saves time.
> Given the use of pull requests for otp.git, what about automatically
> syncing bugs to/from https://github.com/erlang/otp/issues?

No, I don't think we should use GH Issues at all. It seems lacking in 
usability, at least when I've tried them for other projects.

>
>>> I don't care about pull requests for typos, but that's all they
>>> should be used for.
>> My thoughts on this.
>>
>> I will certianly agree with you that GH has shortcomings. Especially
>> with issue tracking but also with pull requests (to a lesser
>> degree). I don't think we will ever use the issue tracking on GH as
>> it is just plain awful for larger projects but it might be suitable
>> for other things, like community driven tasks.
>>
>> I don't share your concern that the history of a pull requsts can
>> change or gets lost (deleted). I mean, I do belive this might happen
> I think Anthony is right, and using the patch-queue approach of a
> cleanly rebased branch, code comments can also disappear. I haven't
> figured out the pattern yet, but sometimes after a rebase old comments
> are still linked but collapsed, and sometimes they're gone. I prefer
> Gerrit's code review functionality for this particularly feature.
> Also, the way github inserts new commits into the discussion is
> debatable.

I belive GH PRs are good enough. Transient data to forward the work of 
the patch. Code comments are also transient and should be treated as 
such. We won't add Gerrit or any other tools atm.

// Björn-Egil