Itamar makes an excellent point. That probably is one of the worst problems we have right now. and it definitely needs to be addressed.<br><br>Figuring out how code could end up not-in-the-attic sounds like part of the transition plan to me. I do, in fact, think Github means patches are less likely to be abandoned. There's two reasons for that. First of all, you don't have to deal with a patch: you deal with a pull request. That means there's a branch with commits, and it's already in version control. Because that version control lives on Github, it's very easy to pull into your own checkout and work on it.<br>
<br>This lowers the barrier to entry further, and completely gets rid of the distinction between committers and non-committers we currently have (where non-committers don't get to use version control, basically, unless they use bzr or something else, which again is a distinction between workflows for people with and without commit bits). <br>
<br>The main problem I see in this transition is that Github tickets and pull requests are distinct elements in the issue tracker, whereas reviews go on the ticket in Trac/UQDS.<br>
<br>cheers,<br>lvh<br>