3 ms·

Wine is another such project :) But I gotta say it's only working for those projects because they have an extremely high barrier of entry to the code itself in

Wine is another such project :) But I gotta say it's only working for those projects because they have an extremely high barrier of entry to the code itself in the first place (working on projects like Wine and Postgres is scary, even though you can get started with easy stuff). It also works for them because they have maintainers and core committers used to the workflow, already tooled on the workflow etc. But I wonder how much productivity would be gained by using a github-like flow maybe enhanced a bit.

anarazel 10y ago
In my opinion github isn't quite ready for more complex things: - Lengthy reviews yield PRs that measure many megabytes, become unusably slow - There's no reasonable way to do PRs based on other PRs, without closing and reopening then when the underlying branch is merged - large changes can't even be displayed - doesn't work offline. I do a fair amount of review while traveling, and not being able to do reviews while offline would prevent me from doing so Then there's political issues: there's absolutely no guarantee github will be around in a few years. Postgres is old, and will hopefully live long into three future. When it started there was no sourceforge, and now there's again no sf. I very regularly look back into old development discussions...
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Yeah absolutely, hence why I said github-like. What I mean by that is something more modern, that supports such review style. If only Github supported mailing lists...
  - pgaddict 10y ago
    There's still the aspect of handing over the control to a third party that may disappear next month, discontinue the features you rely on, etc. FWIW, I don't think the workflow is a major barrier. Do 'git format-patch' and submit it to mailing list is about as simple as it can be. It's all the other stuff (complex code-base, going through review, ...) and fairly high bar for quality that makes it challenging.

anarazel 10y ago

In my opinion github isn't quite ready for more complex things: - Lengthy reviews yield PRs that measure many megabytes, become unusably slow - There's no reasonable way to do PRs based on other PRs, without closing and reopening then when the underlying branch is merged - large changes can't even be displayed - doesn't work offline. I do a fair amount of review while traveling, and not being able to do reviews while offline would prevent me from doing so Then there's political issues: there's absolutely no guarantee github will be around in a few years. Postgres is old, and will hopefully live long into three future. When it started there was no sourceforge, and now there's again no sf. I very regularly look back into old development discussions...

scrollaway 10y ago
Yeah absolutely, hence why I said github-like. What I mean by that is something more modern, that supports such review style. If only Github supported mailing lists...
- pgaddict 10y ago
  There's still the aspect of handing over the control to a third party that may disappear next month, discontinue the features you rely on, etc. FWIW, I don't think the workflow is a major barrier. Do 'git format-patch' and submit it to mailing list is about as simple as it can be. It's all the other stuff (complex code-base, going through review, ...) and fairly high bar for quality that makes it challenging.