The gaping hole in Subversion's capability, 11 years on from when
GitHub launched with it, and 13 or so years from Google
operational-izing the functional equivalent for themselves is
patch-review in a way that each is re-creatable in working-copy by
reviewers from the command line. GitHub made th
> * include the patch (as an attachment?) in the PR mails
https://coderwall.com/p/6aw72a/creating-patch-from-github-pull-request
<- turns out GitHub has a secret URL that aids in that workflow.
Remaining: a pledge for speedy processing of these. If standards for
code donations are made clear,
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:27 AM Branko Čibej wrote:
> Moving the source to git would be less than ideal in terms of eating our
> own dogfood. It would also be a terrible move from the "marketing"
> perspective.
I agree with that. There is a lot to be said for "dogfooding." Keeping the
project i
On 19.06.2019 18:59, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Time was when your wire protocol
> (at least WebDAV) was lingua franca. Now it's Gits: Perforce,
> PlasticSCM and Mercurial all speak Git.
Apropos of that, reviving and finishing up the ra_git branch would be
one of the more useful projects.
-- Brane
On 19.06.2019 11:47, Julian Foad wrote:
> We don't handle GitHub pull requests well. Should we change something?
>
> The issue:
>
> - there is a "mirror" of svn source code on GitHub [1]
> - that makes it look like people could submit pull-requests
> - a (very) few people have tried to do so [2]
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
