2020-07-23 3:35 UTC+02:00, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org>: >> >> > I realize that a local build seems to be your gold standard. >> >> Not mine. "Commons". >> > > You are arguing for it.
No I'm not. It (i.e "maven", "svn" then "git") was there when I came here. It could change but that's another discussion that will probably never happen as people just assume that everyone should use GitHub on its own (as contrasted to through being an Apache committer). [The latter is the main thing I don't agree with.] > I would just call it a current policy or practice. > > > >> > That's a very debatable point of view. >> >> There was no debate. > > > Yet it is a debatable point of view :) > No problem with automating the release process. [Cf. my comments in other threads on that subject.] > >> I don't see why you are putting those sideways >> conclusions into the simple issue of maintaining >> this place comfortable for everyone, not only >> for GitHub users. >> > > And I don't get why you are making such a big deal about having to delete > 100(?) emails and maybe setting up an email filter. Yesterday 0 Today 100 Tomorrow ? And for what? Delete. I don't get the logic. >> Deleting the messages should have been 10s max. >> > I wonder why you choose to be outraged instead. >> >> No, today's flood just pushed me to want to have >> something that's bothering for months, fixed. >> > > The flood was from enabling the bot. > So what has bothered you before? > The mails about PRs? Yes, all those messages that would go in [TRACE] level in a logger. >> I guess there are many people out there that like it as a tool. >> >> Maybe you could explain why it's a burden for you? >> >> Sure: No GH account. >> > > OK - why don't you have one? Why should I? Do I need one to contribute here? I so, where is stated? > And why does that make things harder? It does when changes to the contribution work flow assumes that everyone has one. [I mentioned that 2 or 3 times already on "dev@". Namely that it is factually as if "dev@" and JIRA are not anymore *the* (only) official places where changes to the codes are discussed.] >> so maybe elaborate on >> > the inconvenience. >> >> Try to do something on GH without being logged in. >> > > So others are using a tool that (I assume) you don't want to use, > and that is causing inconvenience for you and that is bothering you? The inconvenience is the invalid assumption that everyone should use GH even though that was never discussed. > And you want the rest of us to not use the tool because of that? Where did you get that conclusion from? Is GH more than a convenience tool like Travis, Coveralls or SonarQube? Or is it a core part of the work flow like "git"? If so, when did this happen? Where is the decision recorded? Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
