GitHub pull requests

[Ben Gamari]

Richard Eisenberg <eir at cis.upenn.edu> writes:

> I absolutely believe that we should use the best tools available and
> that committed GHC contributors should have to learn these tools as
> necessary. Though I've had my problems with Phab and `arc`, I'm
> confident that this tool was chosen after a deliberative process and
> am grateful that we have leaders in this area in our midst.
>
Agreed. Phab certainly has a learning curve and is not without its
papercuts but on the whole seems to be an excellent tool.

> All that said, I think that the suggestion just to accept GitHub pull
> requests will lead to confusion, if only for the namespace problem. If
> we start to accept pull requests, then we are de facto going to have
> to deal with both the GH issue tracker and Trac's (and Phab's), and
> that is a terrible place to be. Part of the automated response to pull
> request submissions could be a post on the GH pull request record
> pointing folks to the Phab review that was created in response. The
> pull request would then be closed.
>
This is where I was going with the beginning of a script I posted on
Saturday. To me this seems like an excellent compromise: using the familiarity
of Github to attract contributions and (hopefully) siphon them into
Phabricator. The numbering conflicts may still be problematic but I
suspect that in practice people will learn that the Github numbers are
meaningless fairly quickly.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141006/fcbadacf/attachment.sig>