On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 17:03 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:There's two tools being discussed here - both GitHub and GitLab. Splitting attention between email and a web based tool is bad, but splitting attention between email and two web based tools is even worse. Finally I have general desire to *NOT* designate GitHub as an official part of the libvirt workflow on the basis that it is a closed source tool. Yes, we are already using it, but it is largely an ancillary service working as a passive backup service for our git repos, not a core part of our workflow. I don't want to elevate it to be a core part.I understand why you feel this way and mostly share your opinion on the matter, but from a pragmatic standpoint if our goal is to get more people involved in libvirt's development then cutting off GitHub is almost certainly the wrong way to go about it. Just from the data we already have: GitHub, with the scary "don't send PRs our way" warning at the top of the page, still got 13 PRs; GitLab, which doesn't have the warning, got exactly zero so far.
Not that I crave being part of this discussion more deeply, but s/don't send PRs our way/please use gitlab for PRs/ could help. Another thing we completely missed (which could also be more effective) is to have a PR template [1] which would say "please open MRs on gitlab instead (or "we don't do GitHub" for current state). Another option is to have a bot reply to open PRs with that message designated for the specific user and then closing them right at the same time. [1] https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
