commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ole Ersoy <>
Subject Re: [GitHub] commons-math pull request: Updated the example documentation for t...
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:35:53 GMT

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

- Ole

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message