[erlang-questions] On Pull Requests Comments

Dave Cottlehuber dch@REDACTED
Tue Oct 22 15:18:27 CEST 2013

>>> >I think we should give GitHub a little more time
>>  I think pull requests is a nice addition as it saves time for us. ML's are just awful in this regard. I don't think we have found the optimal ways of working with GitHub, ML's and patches yet. We are still learning.
>> The initial point of supporting GitHub's PRs was to make the work easier for the community, not the OTP team.

>I agree with you that archiving can be a problem. I actually get all
>PR's as mails. I think others can to by watching the PR's. That might
>solve your problem.
>I like others to weigh in too.
>Are PR's as bad as Anthony points out? Should we kill it and use mails only?
>// Björn-Egil

Hi Björn-Egil, Anthony & all,

Let's not paint this as an either-or choice. I think we can use both. The Apache Software Foundation has already been down this path, for projects like Cordova and CouchDB, successfully.

TL;DR keep the PRs and forward all commentary to erlang-bugs/patches/something-new and everybody should be happy.

Here's my personal view;

- It's great that Ericsson's OTP team are continually improving their engagement with the community. You are doing fantastic work and it's winning all the way down. \o/ more please!

- submitting changes via PR instead of directly on the mailing list is clean and tidy, with better visibility when viewed in context like a diff or changed files view.

- However, the comments & discussions within the github thread are easily lost. For those who are not interested in subscribing to a full erlang-questions/patches/bugs list, it's ideal for keeping up to date on a fix that individual submitted.

- Subscribing (watching) the whole repo could be a lot of unwanted noise.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list