From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wiles, Keith" Subject: Re: GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 19:10:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150501164512.GB27756@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150501173108.GA24714@mhcomputing.net> <20150501184813.GC27756@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Neil Horman , Matthew Hall Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150501184813.GC27756-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 5/1/15, 1:48 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote: >On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 10:31:08AM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: >> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 12:45:12PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: >> > Yes, but as you said above, using a web browser doesn't make >>reviewing patches >> > faster. In fact, I would assert that it slows the process down, as >>it prevents >> > quick, easy command line access to patch review (as you have with a >>properly >> > configured MUA). That seems like we're going in the opposite >>direction of at >> > least one problem we would like to solve. >>=20 >> Normally I'm a big command-line supporter. However I have found >>reviewing=20 >> patches by email for me is about the most painful workflow. >>=20 >> The emails are pages and pages. >>=20 >So collapse the quoted text (see below) > >> The replies from commenters are buried in the walls of text. >>=20 >Again, collapse the text, many MUA's let you do that, its not a feature >unique >to github. > >> Replies to replies keep shifting farther off the edge of the screen. >>The code=20 >> gets weirder and weirder to try to read. >>=20 >Text Collapse will reformat that for you. > >> Quickly reading over the patchset by scrolling through to get the >>flavor of=20 >> it, to see if I'm qualified to review it, and look at the parts I >>actually=20 >> know about is much harder. >>=20 >Thats what the origional post is for, no? Look at that to determine if >you are >qualified to read it. > >> I can go to one place to see every candidate patchset out there, the GH >>Pull=20 >> Request page. Then I can just sync up the branch and test it on my own >>systems=20 >> to see if it works, not just try to read it. >>=20 >how is that different from a mailing list? both let you search for >posts, and >both allow you to sync git branches (github via git remote/pull, mailing >list >via git am) > >> Github automatically minimizes old comments that are already fixed, so >>they=20 >> don't keep consuming space and mental bandwidth from the review. >An MUA can do that too. IIRC evolution and thunderbird both have collapse >features. I'm sure others do too. Not all email clients allow for collapsing threads, I am using outlook for Mac and I do not think the windows version has that feature. I am not sure Apple mail client can handle collapsing or not as I am stuck with outlook as my email virus (I mean client) :-) The point here is all emails clients have different ways of displaying the information some good some bad. I see the GitHub method to be different, but for me I am able to understand the way it handles comments and patches. I have the same problems as Matthew, but I do not want to get into a email client wars. > >>=20 >> All in all, I'd be able to review more DPDK patches faster with the GH >> interface than having them in the mailing list. >>=20 >> Matthew. >>=20