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.
-
-
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 -
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.
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.