On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Could you elaborate why you would expect quality and/or quantity of > reviews to suffer? I'm really curious, and I'd be happy to pass your > feedback along to my colleagues. Since I have been using github at work for a couple months, I do have a few complaints if it will ever become the way of reviewing things in git. Some of these may be covered by other people already (I haven't read all new mails in this thread yet) - Github PRs seem to encourage seeing changes as a whole, not a separate commits. Or at least it's not so convenient to view separate commits (e.g. not easy to go to the next commit) - The ability to show all outdated comments, in case I want to search through them. - I have a feeling that commits in PRs are sorted by authordate, not in topological order. The order of commits being committed is important sometimes. - Not showing leading spaces mixing with TABs, or trailing spaces - I would love to have all patches numbered so can refer to them as 1/7, 2/5... instead of just short sha1 (and I think you have the ability to refer to "1/7 of iteration 2", see next bullet point) -I guess you can manage multiple iterations of a topic with one iteration per PR, then linking them together. It would be nicer to somehow bake the iteration concept directly to a PR so we can switch between them, or do interdiff. I know, this is more of a improvement request than complaint because ML is not really better. - Offline support would be very nice. I'm only most of the time, but sometimes I do work on git stuff offline. - We lose the integration with ML, I think. Sometimes the user reports a bug here, then we reply back with a patch. With github, I guess we reply back with a PR number, then further discussion may go there, some discussion may still be on ML. > * It is easy to summon somebody else into the review conversation by > @-mentioning them. That person immediately can see the whole history of > the PR. (This is an improvement on the status quo, where a new entrant > to a conversation might have to dig through the email trash or an email > archive to see emails that they overlooked before they were added to the > CC list.) On the other hand, we can't just CC anybody anymore because we don't know if they have a github account (or the account name for that matter). Or does github allow @-ing email addresses too? We record people's email address, not github account names. > * It is possible to search old issues and PRs for additional context. > (Granted, the history of the project from its ML era would have to be > searched separately.) To me searching in email is still better. Maybe I haven't fully explored github search capabilities -- Duy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html