Re: Choice of bug tracker

[Philip Kaludercic]

Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com> writes:

> As for submitting patches, I much much much much prefer the Emacs way™.
> It is so much better than forking the repo, creating a new branch,
> fighting with Git to merge/rebase and push properly without --force (I
> still don't know how to do the latter FWIW). And don't get me started on
> amendments after creating the PR...

People appear to forget how unintuitive the PR approach actually is, and
prefer it mostly because they are used to the notion of doing what you
describe here.  But I (unsurprisingly) agree, I submitted a few patches
to Agda-mode earlier this year[0], but because they depend on one
another, the web UI is confused and displays all the commits.  Perhaps
just anecdotal, but at least an example of how these kinds of interfaces
restrict the Git workflow.

[0] https://github.com/agda/agda/pull/6123#issuecomment-1472151296
[1] https://github.com/agda/agda/pull/6540/commits

>> There should also be SourceHut on this scale, but I don't know where
>> to put it.
>
> Cannot comment on how everyone else uses Sourcehut but my experience was
> slightly better than Debbugs because I got instant feedback from the
> mailing list archive and Philip accepts patches as attachments.  ;-)
> Generally, I don't find their web UI all that useful since they drop the
> entire message after the attachment.  I am not sure if there are plans
> to fix it since Sourcehut people prefer `git send-email' AFAIK.

FWIW I spoke with the Sourcehut developers at FOSDEM this year and IIRC
they told me that while they aren't interested in upstreaming the
features that would be nice to have for Emacs development, they would be
happy to help with any issues if a fork were to be maintained.