3 ms·

I think it's very valuable to have a discussion thread interleaved with patches that get better with more and more feedback (that's what github's pull requests

I think it's very valuable to have a discussion thread interleaved with patches that get better with more and more feedback (that's what github's pull requests look like to me). I understand what you mean about the majority of mailing list discussions not starting with a patch though. On github, it would be nice if you could attach a pull request to an existing issue (last time I tried this it didn't work). Perhaps "pull request" is a bit of a misnomer? Technically speaking it's correct, but if the idea was more that you can interleave patches with a discussion, maybe it wouldn't seem so unpalatable to your way of working. If the discussion doesn't end up merged into "master", just close the issue in question as "wontfix" or similar.

antirez 16y ago
what is the gain in splitting the conversation about a project between mailing list and github pull requests? Indeed pull requests are often cathedral in the desert, often without a single comment. To centralize the discussion in the mailing list makes a lot more sense IMHO, and exposes it to a much wider audience.
- jasondavies 16y ago
  Good point, I don't think conversations should ever be split if possible as this is confusing. I contribute to quite a few projects that only have a github project and associated issue tracker though, and "pull requests as conversations" seem to work fine in those cases. These projects are generally smaller than redis though :-)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]