From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] git-candidate: git based patch tracking and review
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 03:17:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151114081707.GA32739@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151111151204.GA4249@salo>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 03:12:05PM +0000, Richard Ipsum wrote:
> > All that being said, my gut feeling is that a system like this should
> > not be developed within the Git project itself. Code review is a
> > complicated thing, and I expect that different people will have very
> > different ideas about how it should work. It would be a bad idea for the
> > Git project to "bless" one system by including it in our source tree.
> > (Earlier in the Git's history it was easier to get something accepted
> > into "contrib", but that has gotten much harder over time.)
>
> The aim is not to bless one particular system but to eventually
> provide a common data model that all review systems can share,
> so that it is possible to do distributed reviews with arbitrary UIs
> in a widely compatible way.
I think that's a laudable goal, but I didn't see any discussion or
documentation of the data model in your patches. Maybe that would be a
good place to start.
> If we add git-candidate to contrib then it can act as a reference
> implementation, so that this data model can be validated and tested
> by additional developers.
That can happen outside of git's contrib/ directory, too.
I think Michael's "bless" argument applies to the data model, too. Is
your data model a good one? Should other systems adopt it, or is it
still a work in progress? We don't know yet.
I think I'd rather see it prove itself before entering the git tree, if
only because it doesn't really gain anything by being inside the git
tree. Once upon a time that was a good way to get publicity and easy
hosting, but these days it is easy to find git hosting, and I am not
sure people actually explore contrib/ all that much.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-14 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-10 12:56 [PATCH 0/2] git-candidate: git based patch tracking and review Richard Ipsum
2015-11-10 12:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] contrib: Add git-candidate subcommand Richard Ipsum
2015-11-10 12:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] contrib/git-candidate: Add README Richard Ipsum
2015-11-10 20:19 ` David Turner
2015-11-11 9:48 ` Richard Ipsum
2015-11-11 20:15 ` David Turner
2016-01-06 20:50 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2015-11-11 9:55 ` [PATCH 0/2] git-candidate: git based patch tracking and review Michael Haggerty
2015-11-11 15:12 ` Richard Ipsum
2015-11-14 8:17 ` Jeff King [this message]
2015-11-14 13:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-12-01 20:55 ` Jonathan Nieder
2015-12-01 21:00 ` Dave Borowitz
2016-01-06 15:49 ` Richard Ipsum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151114081707.GA32739@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).