Re: Gitlab Migration

[Arthur Miller]

João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 12:31 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  Agreed.  We don't need to force everyone to use a single workflow.  We
>  should have a platform that supports reasonably well the different
>  popular workflows.
>
> I wish this point was stressed more often. Git, to which we've switched 
> reasonably recently after some pain, accommodates many
> many workflows. We should embrace that!!
>
> E.g. if browser living people want to make PRs to an intermediate repo on 
> GitHub, they can today! And then once they're
> reasonably stable and agreed upon, some email wizard (really, can be me, even 
> though I'm not really a wizard) can push them to
> main repo, and even adjust a commit message or two. Git provides lots of 
> commands for that,. I'm happy to explain and document
> them, though I doubt I'm the only such expert here.
>
> The main question is where the discussion happens: it has to be email, 
> period. And right now it's debbugs and emacs-devel. And
> yes I know that GitHub/gitlab do pretty links automatically between web UI 
> parts, but how is that so different from sending email
> where you say you have a public branch with x commits here or there?
>
> My two cents,
> João

There is also an interesting parallel: why doesn't peopel complain to Linus to
move Kernel development to more modern workflow?