[xmonad] RFC: XMonad.Prompt.ConfirmPrompt module

[Carsten Mattner]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Carlos López-Camey <c.lopez at kmels.net> wrote:
> Hello Carsten,
> What do you think of hub.darcs.net? it supports darcs, project forks,
> and also issue reports.

If Darcs is kept sure why not.

> I liked the looks of phabricator, but check this "fact":
>
>         "Phabricator has more than 300,000 lines of PHP, so there are
> probably at least sixty or seventy million security vulnerabilities in
> the project."

Yeah, Phabricator has bugs, but it was chosen instead of
Gerritt, and there are people maintaining it and Facebook
will fix bugs, so the proper code review and workflow it provides
is worth the bugginess if you ask me.

Arcanis (the command line tool) is also opinionated and messes
up clean history of topic branches by collapsing it into one
single commit so that's a problem.

We have to ask the GHC contributors how they deal with that
as single commit per branch is so CVS/SVN-ish and makes
bisecting bugs impossible.

> Personally i am neutral on moving to git, I think darcs is robust.
> However, there is no reason why there shouldn't be any git mirrors :)
> In fact, i tried doing that in the past. but I don't know if there's a
> solution to maintain git and darcs synced..

Me too, but it seems people feel more comfortable with git, and
if it increases the chances of small contributions by users who'd
otherwise skip due to Darcs, I'd say it's worth the migration.

I'm not neutral on Github though. It's a failure of the FOSS community
that everybody treats it like it's the new TCP of code hosting.
And as I said their focus is on unimportant stuff while making their
code reviews worse. Recently they changed diffs to be syntax highlighted
which is a bad idea because it makes RED (delete) GREEN (ADD)
unified diff visualizations harder to read (scan). Not to mention code
comments being unusable but I'm repeating myself.

> 2015-03-12 12:24 GMT-06:00 Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Peter Jones <mlists at pmade.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com>
>>>> writes:
>>>> > If a migration happens it should host the git repo on git.haskell.org,
>>>> > googlecode.com (where the issue tracker is) and wherever else,
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the issue tracker will need to move somewhere too:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/google-to-close-google-code-open-source-project-hosting/
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, just saw that and was drafting a "we need to move everything soonish"
>>> message....
>>
>> I say move to git.haskell.org and phabricator.haskell.org as the primary place
>> as github refuses to fix their code review system. Github's systems works
>> enough to seem nice but falls down if you actually review code:
>>
>> 1. no patch history
>> 2. horrendous comment system in reviews
>> 3. new comments as replies to previous ones are hidden and hard to find
>> if you don't manually look for them in the code comments
>>
>> I don't want to be direct, but github's code review and comment system
>> is superbad.
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmonad mailing list
>> xmonad at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xmonad