On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2014, 19:20 +0200 schrieb Tuncer Ayaz:
There's also the problem that Github's review system is not as powerful and most importantly does not preserve history like Gerrit or Phabricator do. Once used to it, maintainers probably won't be happy to lose productivity due to the simplistic review system.
I don't think this is a reason to forbid them alltogether. We could say: "We prefer submissions via Phabricator, especially for larger patches, but if you like, you can use GitHub as well - your contributions is welcome in any case."
We are talking about small contributions and entry-barriers here, and a for a documentation patch or similarly small contributions, we don't need the full power of Phabricator. When new contributors start to engage more deeply they will not mind learning Phabricator. But they will be much more motivated to do so when they have already successfully contributed something.
Sure, it should certainly be tried. By the way, while the Github team has no public ticket system, they are very responsive when you send them feature requests or, say, explain where the review system is incomplete/broken. They never promise anything and do not pre-announce a feature, so it is hard to track future changes. However, they're responsive and seem to value majority opinion. Here's the page: https://github.com/support