3 ms·
> But then you're back to using a forge, and needing to open the website to review changes in addition to using git and email. It sounds to me, and I mean this
by da39a3ee 3y ago
> But then you're back to using a forge, and needing to open the website to review changes in addition to using git and email.
It sounds to me, and I mean this quite objectively, not as a personal insult, that you're attracted to the email-based flow not because it is better, but because you just don't want to use a web UI. So since you define web UI as bad, you of course reach the conclusion that the email-based flow is better.
- Sprocklem 3y agoI'm not sure I phrased that correctly. The point I was trying to get across with that sentence was not so much that web UIs are bad, but that if you are using a forge with in-browser support for reviewing changes (generally in the context of pull requests), then there is little benefit to sending "a commit sha and branch name" separately. Similarly, send-email–based workflows have little need to manage the repository in the browser. Email-based workflows and pull-request-based workflows are parallel in that they provide the same features in different ways. We can quibble about which is more convenient (admittedly I find the former better in this regard, although I recognize that this is a minority opinion), but they are IMO both more-or-less equally viable choices.