On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:50:14PM +1000, Jookia wrote: > On top of that, the maintainers can't even use the mailing list properly: > Patches are lost, discussion doesn't happen, things are lost and it's hard for > new users to join in. Who exactly benefits from this workflow compared to > something web-based? Sure, maybe you could argue that the maintainers are best > served with it, or that you personally are attuned to that. Fine, but let's > not > pretend the mailing list isn't gruelling.
I've heard a handful of people express frustration with a mail-based workflow. Here's what's easy for me: 1) I set up my mail provider / server to put all mail from guix-devel@gnu.org into a Guix mailbox. This doesn't require advanced knowledge. Even the most "user-friendly" solutions like GMail have this feature. 2) When a message is "done", I put it in an Archive mailbox or delete it. A message is done when it no longer requires attention. For example, when I've replied and am waiting for the other person to reply, or when a patch has been merged. > It's a complicated setup in return for being able to track what's happening in > the project. If I were to ask, 'how many patches are pending review' right now > you'd have absolutely no idea. I can look at my Guix mailbox to see all outstanding patches. By the way, if someone asks the submitter to look into something or make a change, the patch is no longer outstanding until they reply. The ball is now in their court. I archive their message if I have nothing else to add [0]. We all manage *our own submissions*. Nobody else is responsible for that. Otherwise, we can't expect that the submitter will maintain their code once it has been merged. [0] Sometimes I don't archive messages, because I know that I will pick up the work if the submitter drops it.
