Hacker News Reader

> To create a patch one must fork the repository publicly (weird and unnecessary).

I think it's very fair to demand from a contributor to sync and build the entire app before they're allowed to submit a patch.

Interestingly, I note the Go team says it's "unnecessary" but doesn't provide their alternative.

View on HN

We expect contributors to sync and run all the tests. The public forking is the weird and unnecessary part.

Gerrit is the alternative used, and contributors have a full local clone of the git repo, with their commit, and that's private on their machine until they push it to Gerrit for review.

What is so disturbing about the "public" part that it's worth discarding the whole approach?

No-one said "disturbing". It's weird if you've come from an environment where you do your individual work in private, and only show it to people when it's ready to be committed/merged.

No-one said that that point alone is worth discarding the whole approach. You're nitpicking a single bullet point from around a half dozen points that stacked up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com