3 ms·

> I am not that excited about that last part, but federating pull requests sounds like a killer feature Git already has a pull request feature [1] that's as fe

> I am not that excited about that last part, but federating pull requests sounds like a killer feature Git already has a pull request feature [1] that's as federated as it can get. The 'request-pull' command can be used to request pull on upstream repositories hosted anywhere (or not at all). The only requirement is that the downstream clone must be online. I know that HN isn't particularly found of email-based workflows for git. But requesting a pull is as simple as copying the output and mailing it (or via any text messaging service) to the maintainer. And doing a pull as a maintainer is actually easier than doing local PR merges using Github. [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull

jrochkind1 4y ago
> I know that HN isn't particularly found of email-based workflows for git. I would think it's not just HN. Do you think people are using github PR feature because they just don't know about the email-based workflow available, but would prefer it if they did? Most people don't want an email-based workflow here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
account42 4y ago
> But requesting a pull is as simple as copying the output and mailing it (or via any text messaging service) to the maintainer. I love email based workflows as much as anyone but for many people this is not "simple". For one, you need to be able to send plain text email or at least not have your client mangle it too much.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  I can see this being difficult for random people, but I can't imagine it being a hard ask for developers.
remram 4y ago
A pull request on a Git hosting platform is much more though. It allows commenting, tracking versions of the branch, and showing the diff. Even if the pull request is denied, those comments and the diff will stay available for all to see. You can replicate that with email with a patch-based workflow, if you have a mailing-list server with public archives. That is not that much less software, and you have to deal with email deliverability etc. Simply sending someone a git-request-pull doesn't carry anything for posterity. It contains a link to some place that hopefully contains the changes at one point (if you typed it right, git does no validation), but probably won't contain them for long.

jrochkind1 4y ago

> I know that HN isn't particularly found of email-based workflows for git. I would think it's not just HN. Do you think people are using github PR feature because they just don't know about the email-based workflow available, but would prefer it if they did? Most people don't want an email-based workflow here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

account42 4y ago

> But requesting a pull is as simple as copying the output and mailing it (or via any text messaging service) to the maintainer. I love email based workflows as much as anyone but for many people this is not "simple". For one, you need to be able to send plain text email or at least not have your client mangle it too much.

NoGravitas 4y ago
I can see this being difficult for random people, but I can't imagine it being a hard ask for developers.

remram 4y ago

A pull request on a Git hosting platform is much more though. It allows commenting, tracking versions of the branch, and showing the diff. Even if the pull request is denied, those comments and the diff will stay available for all to see. You can replicate that with email with a patch-based workflow, if you have a mailing-list server with public archives. That is not that much less software, and you have to deal with email deliverability etc. Simply sending someone a git-request-pull doesn't carry anything for posterity. It contains a link to some place that hopefully contains the changes at one point (if you typed it right, git does no validation), but probably won't contain them for long.