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 1093A211C608A for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from muon.bluestop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32EEA015; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:42:19 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluestop.org; s=mail; t=1549647739; bh=H/5zmm3RggdTVyhvcepgJCVBwspCEJ4+QBY9JCcH26M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=D96C6X02lz/7xVRD/hq4jllenCZ9fe068VGPU/gkAmiBqLRCBv7ZU+t5lOtKfaDQw mbh4ZGGLjU3VH9u5QWdiTT9RitpD8Ltifg3ZERoGzt/4GrMusALq3heZDXoDLDzGDx 6GdERcXoKzMAAp2v6HlCv3pcT82pqW6mbeaW8NRQ= Received: from muon.bluestop.org ([127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (muon.bluestop.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZF3OtPpfwHrq; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:42:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from Rebeccas-iPhone.mail (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; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:42:19 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:33:58 -0700 From: Rebecca Cran To: Laszlo Ersek , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9313a877-0c8b-2f23-1800-f6f8e8a1d6ee@redhat.com> References: <9313a877-0c8b-2f23-1800-f6f8e8a1d6ee@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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 17:41:25 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On =46ebruary 8, 2019 at 2:01:59 AM, Laszlo Ersek (lersek=40redhat.com(ma= ilto:lersek=40redhat.com)) wrote: > I don't see the workflow modification as viable. The =22patch series=22= > concept is integral to every single open source project that I've ever > worked with. The evolution of a feature or a bug fix over a series of > patches is a core facet of programming and reviewing. It communicates a= > thinking process, and that's what programming is about. =20 I don=E2=80=99t recall coming across the patch series (e.g. the 1/5 email= patches) in other projects. In other projects people post a single patch= and then update it following feedback on the same review. This can be ei= ther in a single, rebased commit, or new commits on a bug/feature branch = - review systems deal with both. > So how long do we wait=3F > =20 Good point=21 =20 > =20 > =20 > What I find practical at this moment is what Stephano has been working > on (thank you for all that Stephano) -- collect & file official > improvement requests with GitHub, and then see how those things are > addressed. In my opinion (not having seen Gerrit anyway, which remains > to be evaluated, but not by me), GitHub is the direct runner up to the > mailing list, so improving GitHub would be the most practical. In > particular I envision the context improvements for the GitHub email > notifications as something very doable for GitHub. =20 I=E2=80=99d certainly be happy to use Github, but I do worry about tieing= ourselves to such a closed system. Rebecca