Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Email and Git = <3

git-send-email.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 265 posts

Re: Email and Git = <3

#151

Post by mikemcquaid »

bombcar wrote: post #92
mikemcquaid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you contribute to open source in those days? I did a little (KDE patches to mailing lists before I got Subversion access) and: it was _awful_. You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. GitHub has made some parts of open source worse (e.g. how easy it is to now open poor issues while ignoring required information compared to Bugzilla) but the…

One thing I’ve noticed is that the people who “live in their email client” (and this applies to Outlook and to using emacs to read email) are very productive if everything is working right. I’ve seen people blow through a number of patches and discussions in their email client faster than I can even get GitHub to load the notifications. And then there’s a philosophical discussion if burning newbie’s time or discourag…

I live in my email client and only use GitHub's email notifications. When I was working at GitHub and watching Homebrew/homebrew-core: I would regularly get >1000 a day.

I still do not miss the days of doing patch management from my email client :)

Re: Email and Git = <3

#152

Post by Avamander »

emersion wrote: post #123
ligurio wrote: post #74

I appreciate the effort here, but in the proposed workflow are missed steps with subscribing to a mailing list. Without proper subscriptions and confirming subscription, your mails with patches will go to trash.

That's not true in general. Many mailing lists accept emails from unsubscribed users, some moderate them (requiring moderator approval for the first post), but I don't know of any which outright rejects such emails.

I might be remembering wrong but I think hostapd's list rejects like that.

In any case, even the possibility of such an outcome is not pleasant.

Re: Email and Git = <3

#153

Post by vibhas777 »

manojlds wrote: post #4

Weird way to list and sort OSs there. Microsoft Windows but last, due to the W I guess but macOS has no Apple in it.

The author of the website not only made this tutorial but also ranked the OS's according to his preference too!

Windows deserves being at the bottom

Re: Email and Git = <3

#154

Post by mikemcquaid »

keepamovin wrote: post #75
mikemcquaid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you contribute to open source in those days? I did a little (KDE patches to mailing lists before I got Subversion access) and: it was _awful_. You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. GitHub has made some parts of open source worse (e.g. how easy it is to now open poor issues while ignoring required information compared to Bugzilla) but the…

Ha! I love your bias disclaimer -- and you have certainly brought Homebrew out of the darkages (no disparagement to the earlier works); it's noticeably more performant lately. :) Your skepticism is understandable! GH seeks to bring this collab to all, but back then the skill required to even contribute was a barrier. But in a way that barrier was acceptable and useful. The people doing it were skilled. The basic leve…

Thanks for the kind words!

> As a 14-year-old it was beyond me, or so I thought, but in truth it probably wasn’t.

Eh, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't! I didn't do any meaningful open source contribution until the tail end of university/college.

> I suppose you can consider my words an ode to the old ways, and an invitation to consider whether some elements of the past should be reintroduced in today's collaborative environs.

A great idea and always worth considering <3

Re: Email and Git = <3

#155

Post by keepamovin »

ploum wrote: post #31
BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #21

I appreciate the effort here, but after learning the workflow and having to get all this set up on a few computers, having to configure git send-mail is honestly just needlessly annoying and absurd. Organizations that insist on using workflows like git send-mail and mailing lists not only drive away a significant number of potential contributors, but they also form a weirdly religious culture that fetishizes needless…

Organizations that insists on using a web interface and ever-changing click workflows not only drive away a significant number of very knowledgeable contributors, but they also form a weirdly irrational culture that fetishizes needlessly graphical content, marketing and fake-usability detrimental to learnability and integration with each user workflow.

This is well said and insightful! I will reflect on this kind of phenomena and suspect I will be able to see it in the world going forward. Awareness of this will be useful to avoid the pitfalls described here. Thank you for making this contribution! :)

I funnily think that many of the people poo-pooing the email patch method here, would just as merrily join in on HN were it an email mailing list collection, haha! :)

Re: Email and Git = <3

#156

Post by mikemcquaid »

dustfinger wrote: post #26
mikemcquaid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you contribute to open source in those days? I did a little (KDE patches to mailing lists before I got Subversion access) and: it was _awful_. You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. GitHub has made some parts of open source worse (e.g. how easy it is to now open poor issues while ignoring required information compared to Bugzilla) but the…

> You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. Email is just used to receive the patch, you should use a tool meant for the job to actually do the merge. I realize that is probably not what you meant though. Besides, when email patching first began, the tooling was in its infancy. However; today tools like the git cli itself, or magit + smerge-mode…

> Email is just used to receive the patch, you should use a tool meant for the job to actually do the merge.

I know because I also actually did this.

You still had to do this locally and then turn it into an email and had no real indication whether someone else had seen/tried/reviewed/etc. it

> However; today tools like the git cli itself, or magit + smerge-mode (my personal preference) are as good as GitHub, if not better.

I can totally believe for you: this is the case. For most people, though: it will not be. Feel free to prove me wrong by creating a(nother) project that gets thousands of contributors entirely through email.

(If you're actually Linus Torvalds, though: you win, I'll shut up now)

Re: Email and Git = <3

#157

Post by sigterminus »

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #127
howenterprisey wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth is "fake-usability"? It's more usable, just admit it.

Fake-usability is when 97/100 software developers find something more usable, but it's fake because I've invested a lot of time doing it a different way and gotten used to it.

[dead]

Re: Email and Git = <3

#158

Post by mikemcquaid »

pxc wrote: post #118
mikemcquaid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you contribute to open source in those days? I did a little (KDE patches to mailing lists before I got Subversion access) and: it was _awful_. You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. GitHub has made some parts of open source worse (e.g. how easy it is to now open poor issues while ignoring required information compared to Bugzilla) but the…

> You think merging/rebasing/resolving conflicts is a pain now? Doing the same thing via email was _so_ much worse. Wait, are people doing this via the GitHub web UI these days? That sounds like a nightmare.

You can do some of this through the GitHub web UI and sometimes I do that.

I didn't say that, though, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Re: Email and Git = <3

#159

Post by sigterminus »

ploum wrote: post #55
sneak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“needlessly graphical” requires a citation when it’s clear that if you use a web GUI for this you address a market of potential contributors that is three to six orders of magnitude larger. srht is really designed for (and thus only really useful for) lone wolf developers who collaborate rarely, if ever, and with a very small number of collaborators who collaborate infrequently. It is not built for large teams with c…

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Email and Git = <3

#160

Post by Avamander »

oefrha wrote: post #135
IshKebab wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shh now. A basic interface that took 5 minutes to make in 1995 is good enough for all eternity. No need to change it.

I certainly love navigating a million times back and force to read what should be a single thread.

I also love all the "new" threads generated by mail gateways changing the subject to something the likes of "Re: [EXTERNAL SENDER!] Re: Topic"
Post reply on HN