On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 21:34, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > We could continue to mention _both_ tools, but it's probably better to > pick one in order to avoid overwhelming the user with choice. After all, > one of the purposes here is to reduce friction for first-time or > infrequent contributors. And there are a few reasons to prefer GGG: That's fair enough - I haven't committed to submitGit for 2 years (it's continued to work without incident for most of that time I think!). I would be prepared to spend more time on it if it was important to people - or, heavens forfend, I could be paid to do so :) - but I have a lot of projects (not just software ones!) and submitGit kind of fell to the bottom of the pile. I wasn't aware of https://gitgitgadget.github.io/ but it looks good! > 1. submitGit seems to still have a few rough edges. E.g., it doesn't > munge timestamps to help threaded mail readers handled out-of-order > delivery. Yup, very true. > 2. Subjectively, GGG seems to be more commonly used on the list these > days, especially by list regulars. That's probably true too, though my interest with submitGit was more driven by helping early/first-time contributors than regulars. Though I'm sure GGG works well, in an ideal world it would be interesting to get a perspective from a cohort of those kind of users about what kind of flow works best for them - although, as I haven't been following development, maybe this has already been done? > 3. GGG seems to be under more active development (likely related to > point 2). Definitely true! > I feel a little bad sending this, because I really value the work that > Roberto has done on submitGit. So just dropping it feels a bit > dismissive. Oh, you're very kind, that's ok! Very glad submitGit could help for a while, sounds like it was a good proof that GitHub could become part of the contribution process. Roberto
