Moving? I don't think anyone suggests moving everything to GH (I certainly don't want that). It's rather about making small contributions easier for people who are already there. Or do you think that's problematic too? Why?
-
-
Replying to @fuzzycz @d_gustafsson and
Even if it's just a partial move, it'll split review. And I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll manage to very clearly separate what's allowed to happen in github PRs, and what on the list.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @fuzzycz and
I have to agree. I think that having an expedited review process for small changes (definition TBD) makes sense, but having multiple streams into the codebase would be a major headache.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Xof @AndresFreundTec and
Obviously, it's not without risks. I agree changes that are not obviously correct should be funneled to the list, and committers / reviewers should not be expected to watch GH. If there are volunteers willing to curate the GH queue, why not to give it a try?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Outside of typo-fixes etc there's just about no obviously correct contribution by first timers. It's possible that those would suddenly appear, but I doubt it. And if there's any discussion, how would we guarantee it's archived somewhere under our control?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @fuzzycz and
And why are we discouraging even the small drive-by patches by making the process unnecessary complicated for people not familiar with the PostgreSQL development process?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ascherbaum @fuzzycz and
Well, as I previously said. There's very few first comer contributions that actually can just be applied, and the rest requires discussion. And those need to happen somewhere where others have a chance to intervene. Doing that in GH would mandate committers watching it.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @ascherbaum and
Honestly, I think there's somewhat of an infrastructure/process here (i.e. not having http://contributing.md not auto-closing PRs with referral). But the much larger issue is that there's basically no human resources to do that kind of work.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @ascherbaum and
@magnushagander We could use https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown … github app - it requires "only" issue (disabled) and PR read/write rights, and can be configured in a separate .github repository.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @ascherbaum and
Something like that would be a much better experience than the current state.. especially if coupled with improved onboarding/dev docs to refer to
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @d_gustafsson and
Seems easy enough... And I indeed only had to give it permissions to the new ".github" repository (for the configuration of the bot), read/write issue & PR and read-access to .github/lockdown.yml rights on both.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.