|
Top-level
@jwildeboer I've been contributing/following a few big projects that only use mailing list based contributions (Yocto, U-Boot bootloader, Linux kernel, libcamera, Buildroot). The last few years we've seen a lot of people voicing their discontent at that workflow and requesting we do everything with GitHub/GitLab "or else you will never get a contribution from me". So I am not sure those young people are that interested in that old workflow. 14 comments
 @0leil Please do! I will also start a blogpost on how Discord etc mess up communication in a project (IMHO) by mixing synchronous and asynchronous communication together in a way that isn't helpful but, again IMHO, damaging to the flow.  @jwildeboer @0leil It sucks, period. A mail list/usenet gives you all anytime. @0leil @jwildeboer Per-commit review is a point that I hadn't considered. With GitHub's PR UI only making the end result of all commits together apparent, I could see someone introducing a security vulnerability in a commit, fixing it in another, and then tricking a packager into publishing the version with the vuln... @jfred @0leil @jwildeboer per-commit doesnβt make sense when you are just going to deliver all those commits in one PR, same effect as squashing commits when accepting the PR. Main issue I see is trying to do too much in one PR. @jwildeboer ah and before I forget, there's this tool called b4 now that aims at making patch sending for mailing lists a bit easier. I personally have switched to that for the last 1+ year, I am NOT looking back. git-send-email? I now say no no :) I'm still in my early thirties but I think I was probably one of the last generations where GitHub was not in basic monopoly for anything-git. At university it was still a decision which to use and some were still using Dropbox :) @0leil I come from the time when version control was an esoteric topic at first, tarballs and patches ruled. Then I started using CVS and along came Sourceforge, which many projects used. That was what git and GitHub are now, more or less. So yes, better tools, but still the same (centralised) setup. Forgejo/Codeberg are working on integrating ActivityPub by using #ForgeFed [1] and I have high hopes that that will introduce truly better ways and real progress. @jwildeboer @0leil interesting! Does this mean we might be able to follow a @repository@codeberg.org one day soon?  @0leil @jwildeboer I'm around the same age, and in university for my group's final project I literally created a user on my computer for Git and people SSHed into it  @0leil @jwildeboer i wonder how much the learned helplessness that comes from overreliance on these monopolizing monolith platforms contributes to people's later inability or unwillingness to contribute
 @0leil @jwildeboer after running a largeish project for a decade now I am immediately skeptical of anyone saying, "you won't get contributions from me unless you change something". In practice this has always landed somewhere between "when pigs fly" and "don't threaten me with a good time". |
Gregory's Server
@0leil And I support them with that. The very old workflow of creating patch/diff and sending that around is dark magic :) With issue and PR management a la Github/Gitlab/Gitea/Codeberg a lot has become a lot better.