Hi.
As for me, github pull request could be enough. No one needs to chase
down anything and at the same time everything can be easily
tracked/reused with all author information. It is also can be treated as
"evidence of intent to license the code". The only minus is lack of list
archiving.
Also note that since repository is available in github, pull requests
are expected. So, for me best thing would be to send notifications from
github to this list (or some new list) regarding pull requests. It seems
this can be configured in github's notification center.
Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
08.02.12 14:27, Dave Cramer написав(ла):
> I for one would like to keep the policy that we require a context
> patch to be sent to the list.
> Having to chase down everyone's git repo seems like more work rather than less
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Maciek Sakrejda<msakrejda@truviso.com> wrote:
>>>> As far as I
>>>> can tell, the reason the main project requires patches was to change
>>>> the *process* as little as possible in the course of changing the VCS
>>>> plumbing.
>>> That's *a* reason, but not the only one. Other large considerations are
>>> that we consider that the act of submitting the patch to the mailing
>>> list is evidence of intent to license the code under the Postgres
>>> license, and further that this evidence is archived in the PG list
>>> archives.
>> That's an excellent point--thanks for the clarification.