Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> As an occasional CommitFest manager, I'm keenly aware of the makeshift
>> nature of the CommitFest app. If we want to go on using it -- and if we
>> want to attract additional reviewers -- we need to improve it
>> substantially. What Robert built for us was supposed to be a second
>> draft, not a final version.
> This is probably not something we should discuss right now - it's
> better discussed when we're not right inthe middle of a commitfest,
> no?
Judging from the last six months, it's doubtful whether we will ever
again not be in the middle of a commitfest :-(. If better tooling might
help us escape this state, we should talk about it. However ...
>> rather than email-centric, so it would modify our current email-centric
>> workflow (e.g. reviews are posted via a special git commit). Unlike
> Previously, we've said we do not want to do this. And I think in
> general, it's a realliy bad idea to have a tool dictate the workflow.
... if it's going to try to coerce us out of our email-centric habits,
then I for one am very much against it. To me, the problems with the
existing CF app are precisely that it's not well enough integrated with
the email discussions. The way to fix that is not to abandon email (or
at least, it's not a way I wish to pursue).
regards, tom lane
