From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=96.73.9.1; helo=muon.bluestop.org; envelope-from=rebecca@bluestop.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from muon.bluestop.org (muon.bluestop.org [96.73.9.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D35211C6097 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from muon.bluestop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95BE99B8; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:42:27 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluestop.org; s=mail; t=1549608147; bh=mp4Ygi0R/Vjg6zh6kqUTAgE83zxBC5ebqqUSopermdg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=juXXFYCA93tigBng01EOsErJQTnA6dLH888LPzKGZWETS/05ZD+TLf6NiHBa43SQu giZdCoOGqkanXXTAuyeNjQJTyhbuCPJqUo67rPbm0hJOAQzz2PDBllrgoyADZnHWpb VTLo+5SVWNve9e08KGrUz4EqVFyfccpSGRgxwGPc= Received: from muon.bluestop.org ([127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (muon.bluestop.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LGgrNGRwPagn; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:42:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from photon.int.bluestop.org (gw.bluestop.org [96.73.9.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by muon.bluestop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:42:27 -0700 (MST) From: Rebecca Cran To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: stephano , Jeremiah Cox , Laszlo Ersek Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:41:30 -0700 Message-ID: <8725413.RH3biPoPvx@photon.int.bluestop.org> In-Reply-To: <793375cd-f55a-fa22-97c2-d6fd04da7d8b@linux.intel.com> References: <793375cd-f55a-fa22-97c2-d6fd04da7d8b@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [edk2-announce] Community Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:41:33 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday, 7 February 2019 11:30:38 MST stephano wrote: > My apologies if I was not clear in the minutes. We are not rejecting > Github, but rather taking time to evaluate how we can supplement > Github's features to emulate our current patch review requirements. We > do not want to rush into change and risk losing data or causing > frustration for those developers currently contributing on a regular basis. > > I am currently working off this list of issues that Laszlo brought up: > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2018-December/033509.html > > To be clear, Laszlo is not the only package maintainer that has voiced > these concerns. The longevity of pull request branches and the fact that > email notifications lack context are top on my list. There are several > ways to overcome these obstacles, and finding the best solution will > ensure that if we transition to Github, that transition is successful. > > The ability to allow developers to work offline (or with intermittent > connections) is an important aspect as well. We cannot practice > exclusionary or ostracizing behaviors if we expect to grow and maintain > a community. I cannot imagine that Github has become as popular as it is > if it cannot facilitate ease of offline use. I wonder if Phabricator could be considered again, since I believe it supports all the features mentioned: the only thing it doesn't support as a first-class feature is mutli-patch reviews, which need to be done by linking separate reviews together using the dependency feature. I wonder if it could either be enhanced to support that, or people's workflow modified? -- Rebecca Cran