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.
Cheers,
- Ole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
