couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Smith <...@iriscouch.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Send Github new comment notifications to the dev list
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:09:39 GMT
We fell within the expected base rate of bikeshed discussions in a public
forum--no big deal.

Would it be possible to post a fresh email summarizing this thread,
identifying actions taken or to be taken?


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 19:19 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 18:57 , Eli Stevens (Gmail) <wickedgrey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Every single email I get from a github pull request contains a header
> like:
> >>>
> >>> Reply-To: mobius-medical/dev <
> >>> reply+p-111-0123456789abcdef-222@reply.github.com>
> >>>
> >>> And sending email to that email address causes the content of that
> email to
> >>> show up in the pull request.
> >>>
> >>> Unless public repos behave differently in this regard from private ones
> >>> (which is what I'm using when I see these), it seems like we can solve
> the
> >>> content mirroring issue *trivially*.  Nobody needs to volunteer to be
> >>> online 150% of the time for anything.  If someone on the ML wants to
> have a
> >>> reply appear in the PR, then you make sure the reply.github.comaddress is
> >>> CCd.  If you don't, then just send to the ML.
> >>>
> >>> Is all of the discussion about github PRs unaware of this current
> >>> email-to-PR-comment bridge, or is there some non-obvious inadequacy (in
> >>> which case it should be spelled out)?
> >>
> >> Thanks for pointing this out, I looked at this as well, but then had to
> write
> >> lengthy emails instead.
> >>
> >> My 150% number is only to illustrate the futility of this argument.
> >>
> > Are you considering my concern futile? I'm starting to be really
> > annoyed by the way you handle all of this. I passed sometimes to think
> > on that problem before posting a response to a somewhat
> > passive-agressive mail. I always said I preferred and I would be OK
> > for a solution that propose a 2-way channel. And this is not a theory
> > or anything (are you putting the hand on something hot before saying
> > it's hot?) it is a a clear concern.  If we have a solution to do this,
> > fine.
> >
> > Now I also said I would prefer to not use github PR at all and would
> > prefer a simpler workflow than multiplying the code sources. I'm
> > working on a mail that will propose something like this.
> >
> > - benoƮt
>
> I have replied to all of these points in the past and I made my position
> clear multiple times.
>
> * * *
>
> In the meantime I have contacted Infra to sort out the technical details,
> I will report when I have more details.
>
> * * *
>
> Also in the meantime, two people have contacted me to say that they are
> afraid to post to dev@ because of this thread. I am fucking ashamed for
> us :(
>
> My apologies if my behaviour here contributed to that.
>
> * * *
>
> Everybody, this whole thread is a really poor showing of the otherwise
> amazing developer community around CouchDB. We value any discussion,
> questions and viewpoints you might have. If you have any concerns, please
> post them to this list.
>
> Thanks
> Jan
> --
>
>


-- 
Iris Couch

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message