On 5/2/17 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@egenix.com> wrote:

On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:

On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> wrote:

This brings me to my questions

1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with
having major decisions just in Github PRs?

2) How can we retain enough information on BPO to keep it useful as
research database for past decisions?

It's OK to have the discussions on GitHub, but one of the
responsibilities of reviewers is to ensure that significant design
decisions are summarised on the related tracker issue for future
reference.

I don't think that's a good idea, since the core devs then
have to check what's good discussion to have on Github PRs
and what not.

IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people
to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code reviews.

I agree with Mark-Andre here.  It will take effort on our part to
make our culture be "discuss on BPO", but it will produce a much
superior history to what github PRs produce, so I think it is worth it.

I agree with David and MAL. github PR's should replace Rietveld for code reviews, and should not replace BPO for discussions.

Eric.

_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/