commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [GitHub] commons-math pull request: Updated the example documentation for t...
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:17:59 GMT
Hi.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:53 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 02:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 10/2/14 11:33 AM, Ole Ersoy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2014 11:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:51:53 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
>>>>> Hello Luc, Gilles, and Benedikt,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm here :).  From my limited github experience, I do think most
>>>>> contributors do their communication directly through github.
>>>>
>>>> "Commons" contributors?
>>>
>>> I should have clarified.  Just github users and contributors in
>>> general.  A popular pattern I see for github repository projects
>>> is that developers keep their pull communication with the pull,
>>> design (etc.) discussions in issues, and support on
>>> stackoverflow.  So I'm thinking that future / potential
>>> commons-math contributors might expect this type of pattern.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> seen a lot of projects use issues for discussion.  I personally
>>>>> like
>>>>> this, because it makes it easy to get up to speed on design
>>>>> decisions
>>>>> and project history.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's a better way.  But it's not (yet) the official way,
>>>> which
>>>> is this ML.
>>>
>>> Sure.  I just wanted to mention it since github users that are
>>> watching the project will get more information without having to
>>> subscribe to the mailing list.
>>>
>>> Also I think what Benedikt was saying was that I might be someone
>>> who does not actually know about the mailing list, so if
>>> communication goes out to me on the mailing list WRT my pull
>>> request, I might miss it.
>>
>> The problem is that if any substantial design discussion happens
>> *outside* the ML, those who *are* subscribed to the list will miss
>> *that*.
>
> Sure - but in all fairness, it's as simple as going to the github
> repository and clicking watch.  The other benefit is that now the
> notifications will be for commons math only.

?
We _have_ to be subscribed on this ML to contribute to this project.
Thus we get all the (not necessarily interesting to everyone) posted
here, and _in addition_ we would get message from yet another source.
That's no improvement. Unless things have to get to get worse before
they get better. ;-)

>
>> A core principle of ASF projects is that everything
>> happens in the open, is archived and easily accessible to anyone
>> interested in getting involved in a project.
>
> This will become even more true if github issues are used.  From a
> reading perspective the github format is cleaner looking than
> markmail, etc.

IMHO, the readability of the archive is not the most important point.
It is there for reference purpose. Questions are: Where is the 
"official"
record of the project and where do discussions and decisions take 
place?
The current answer is "here".

>
>> The "if it did not
>> happen on the list, it did not happen" principle is really just to
>> ensure that.  If we start having design discussions outside the
>> list, to figure out what is going on / has gone on, people will have
>> to go looking around the internet, rather than just looking at the
>> list archives.
>
> Everything is tied to the repository.  All the information is in one
> place.  That's usually a plus.

Only if we drop everything that would be a duplicate of the 
functionality
available on that other forum.

>
>> This is one reason we have traditionally liked to
>> have design discussions on the list, rather than in JIRA tickets and
>> why JIRA comments are in any case forwarded to the list.
>
> Sure - honestly I'm just trying to be helpful and suggest a few
> things that will make things even simpler while improving the 
> utility,
> uniform accessibility, visibility, and marketability of commons math
> activity.

Thanks for trying to help. However, you might have more luck to create
things that do not exist yet rather than try and change what exists.
[From my own experience. :-} ]

> Since git is a more social platform, it may make sense to
> take advantage of more of its features.

In practice, you may be right; but in principle, I don't agree.
"git" provides the means to decentralize while "github" is by essence
a centralizer.


Best regards,
Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message