From kde-scm-interest  Wed May 12 06:10:33 2010
From: Thomas Zander <zander () kde ! org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 06:10:33 +0000
To: kde-scm-interest
Subject: Re: [Kde-scm-interest] Alternate Git options
Message-Id: <201005120810.33700.zander () kde ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-scm-interest&m=127364466714489

On Wednesday 12. May 2010 07.54.16 Chani wrote:
> > > pure git based merge requests are essential for KDE growing in my not
> > > so humble opinion.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Define "pure git-based merge requests". GitHub and Gitorious don't do
> > anything you can't do in pure git; Gitorious tells you how to check out
> > the branch and merge in commits, and GitHub requires little action on
> > your part but under the hood just cherry-picks patches over for you
> > (which does some ugly things to history, I might add). So I'm not sure
> > what you mean by "pure git-based merge requests", as I don't think
> > either of these would qualify.
> >
> > 
> 
> I think he meant "not reviewboard".
> I'm not sure how you'd do a merge request without gitorious - publish your
> git  repo somewhere online and email people the url and branch?

Essentially, yes.
Reviewboard has severe workflow issues that are all fixed by using git instead.

The point of Jeff to use git only has merit as indeed git is capable of doing 
exactly this. Using two repos to merge in someone elses patches into the 
mainline.
But as Chani points out, thats just not practical, gitorious makes it 
practical.

If github only does cherry-picking thats kind of a showstopper for me too, to 
be honest.
-- 
Thomas Zander
_______________________________________________
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
Kde-scm-interest@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest