Vim is moving to GitHub

Re:Vim is moving to GitHub by brunosutic on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @11:40AM (#9263641)

It's true.. a lot of the patches are forgotten unless the submitter periodically "pings" Bram (the maintianer) about it.

The vim development model (patches + mailing list) has been pretty frustrating for some people. That's one of the reasons why NeoVim was forked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vim is moving to GitHub by reidrac on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @11:43AM (#9263663)

Is it frustrating because of the patches + mailing list or because the maintainer ignores them?

Because pull requests can be ignored as well, although it is true that they're more visible than a mail in a mailing list archive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vim is moving to GitHub by brandonwamboldt on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @12:11PM (#9263881)

Both IMO. Patches + mailing list isn't an ideal medium for code changes, and it's not as easy to quickly browse a list of patches that haven't been merged yet.

GitHub lets you update patches easily (and see the updated patch), drop comments inline in a patch (very useful for code review), and tag patches (extremely useful for large projects).

Having to go through the extra hassle of a mailing list just to have the maintainer ignore them sucks.

Another benefit of GitHub is that users affected by an issue that has been patched but not merged can just fork the repo and merge the PR themselves and use that (I've done that in multiple cases). Mailing lists aren't as easy for this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vim is moving to GitHub by jessaustin on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @12:53PM (#9264191)

Patches + mailing list isn't an ideal medium for code changes, and it's not as easy to quickly browse a list of patches that haven't been merged yet.

This is true, which I discovered while attempting to contribute to git itself. git's development uses this model, which probably means something, even if I can't figure it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]