On May 2, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
On 5/2/17 2:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, and for them, BPO looks and feels like a legacy system. And honestly, for smaller projects, I've found GitHub a very effective place to have discussions (e.g. most mypy design work is done there). Though I agree that GitHub currently doesn't scale to the size of CPython unless you work hard on setting up filtering (which *is* possible, just done very differently).
I grant that it's an uphill battle. But even github has a separate issue tracker, we're just not using it. So even github black belts should be familiar with the concept of an issue tracker being used for a different purpose than code reviews are.
I suspect part of it may simply be that mucking around with b.p.o is far less streamlined then GitHub issues or PRs. One thing we might want to look at is making it possible to login with GitHub to b.p.o, as that is one possible hurdle for someone to cross when looking at making a comment on a PR/issue.
The flip side of that is even prior to using GitHub it wasn’t like all of the discussion was happening on b.p.o either, some of it happened in Reitveld (though less of it than is happening on GitHub because using Reitveld is/was more frustrating than a GitHub comment) and a lot of it happened in random back channels between individuals.
Ultimately, it’s likely to be a Sisyphean battle to stop it from happening unless b.p.o gets updated to have a UX on par with GitHub and the integration between the two of them makes it as low friction as possible.
— Donald Stufft