From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kei Kebreau Subject: Re: Adopt a patch! Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:15:37 -0400 Message-ID: <874lrvszdi.fsf@posteo.net> References: <877ex5d555.fsf@gnu.org> <4fecd5dd.AEQAQDR72NkAAAAAAAAAAAOzWv8AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZudnG@mailjet.com> <87d16pf5x5.fsf@gnu.org> <0cd911c2-f64a-c60b-ef70-749c135a58e9@crazy-compilers.com> <87h8vw2lfz.fsf@elephly.net> <87d16k86aj.fsf@gmail.com> <87mv5npzdq.fsf@elephly.net> <20170922050241.GA15880@thebird.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51055) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvMs5-0007cM-80 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:15:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvMs1-0004FZ-4J for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:15:53 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:38129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvMs0-0004Dh-S1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:15:49 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A30AF20CC0 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:15:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170922050241.GA15880@thebird.nl> (Pjotr Prins's message of "Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:02:41 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Pjotr Prins Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pjotr Prins writes: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31:29PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> FWIW, I didn=E2=80=99t mean to claim that there are no problems with the >> email-based workflow. I just think that we should improve upon it with >> deliberation instead of jumping to the conclusion that Gitlab or Github >> would be better. > > I think we can have both. We are still stuck in this idea that there > should only be one tree. The Linux kernel is proving differently. > > Pj. I agree. As long as we aren't solely reliant on a web browser for contribution, having two interfaces through which to contribute would be beneficial to people who aren't already familiar with Emacs. Perhaps the people streamlining the Gitlab and Emacs interfaces can collaborate to minimize friction between contributions through each interface. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEg7ZwOtzKO2lLzi2m5qXuPBlGeg0FAlnE/ukACgkQ5qXuPBlG eg2aEw//RQJquJy2xTuKVLBNk9X2pkBJG+NsdR1YA61OV2+iJP00g18ZcukcVmpY h0FR+qsS72/mJCc6TT6Rh+A6Xi6nB1PvhjE6ZWhoGqqYnb/NcHw3G6B/bNzIXrDi 3ovjq0Kvxs4RgA57w2/BkgD0/2i34kAYxkWodIVmNMs25dIgsMlfoCYJG7qZYlE+ WOno5vBVCck9MsZi/kcNY5G5Iw8eu/o/3qRWmcnDaBkeMdQTwRMH4v818SxOd0ya Jkfprqf7iCVnSe+U2vCMvfX/YHwEhmYnKVaxLwIb9v6wge6oXpVbIQcuPZGyVBxt gFwBhpylL8vZS+kFk591w2DDEErzATW3LHYMh4UNOL17PNuNYaY8KbCl5Z9idlx/ mc2PvjtB5RaVfXH/46RpF2DjFUuQym4wh1ecfZ/DpIn34rmPCLBQ+ixuCpIlycHO 4hwTAUrTYmFMTd3NBk/NwMIWVOwzkExaFAlJ7a7An+KjrS//MJkTIqzS/bb4236f +89gsarfqXmlsqCrhGTekRdOjA5ku7NkjeNhmMfkgXVC0OW6cmDeQLTXW2ZgfUSw m+xI9fhC5seLo74tTNOvEjTTLtDmsHwr5f4vG4kpBvYeRwcTQyyQEYQrChx7sAiT /yK95rsygRIEOPoufNNSuEeuFcJoEbYi35bBZLPzxY3sJ6LFZMA= =quUB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--