Re: [gentoo-project] Discontinuing the support for GitHub pull requests

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 01.11.2017 kell 09:00, kirjutas Michał Górny:
> W dniu śro, 01.11.2017 o godzinie 12∶48 +1300, użytkownik Kent
> Fredric
> napisał:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:19:30 +0100
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > The harm is that issues are left unnoticed, and users are left
> > > on the ice.
> >
> > That's exactly the problem with bugzilla today.
> >
> > We're not closing bugzilla.
> >
> > Closing PR's as an option doesn't improve the situation.
> >
> > Closing bugs due to being open more than a month doesn't help users
> > either, it just pisses them off further.
>
> The difference is that Bugzilla has a clear assignment rules, and
> unless
> one screws them up, we can monitor the situation and reassign them as
> inactive maintainers are removed.
>
> PRs are pretty much one big bucket of mess, and the more of them are
> open, the harder it is to figure out what they are about and what's
> the status of them.
>
> And yes, GitHub sucks at this.

Could we tell non-proxy-maint PRs to establish a cross-reference
between a bugzilla entry and the GH PR? Then if a bugzilla entry
exists, which points at the PR (via URL, See Also, something new or
whatever we decide suitable), the PR is kept open after that one week,
otherwise automatically closed with info how to create a bugzilla entry
for this and re-open the PR?

GH is a nice tool for letting users host their patches in an git-
am'able way. It would be nice to keep it, but given that point 2) in
your original post is unsolved, it's not OK to sidestep maintainers
until that isn't solved (and the mentioned "attacks" happen because the
same people are constantly ignoring global gentoo conventions in this
area). This bugzilla entry, to go with it, would solve it in terms of
existing maintainer timeout agreements.


Mart