Re: [python-committers] A different way to focus discussions
[I think my other response got dropped, so apologies for any duplicates]
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to require that for each PEP a new GitHub *repo* be created whose contents would just be a draft PEP and whose issue tracker and PR manager would be used to debate the PEP and propose specific changes.
I don't think I'd want to see tons of new PEP repos under the current python organization. Maybe we should create a new organization for this experiment?
Also, since non-core devs can and do create PEPs, the permission management will be different than the normal repos. Clearly the PEP authors should be owners of the individual repos, but they should probably also decide how merges happen, and who else can contribute to their repo.
It also means that PEP editors probably have an additional responsibility to create the PEP repo.
PEP 1's Discussions-To header can probably be co-opted for the URL to the GH repo. Right now, that field is described as an email address, but it would be appropriate IMHO to also allow a URL for discussions.
Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-)
I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful!
OTOH, it seems like a low-cost experiment to try so if there's a volunteer who wants to be the guinea pig, I'm fine with it.
-Barry
Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-)
I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful!
What has become of the Discourse experiment?
Regards
Antoine.
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 12:07 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-)
I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I
personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful!
What has become of the Discourse experiment?
A Discourse experiment was never started. If you mean Zulip it's still going at python.zulipchat.com.
Regards
Antoine.
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/
Le 22/05/2018 à 22:06, Brett Cannon a écrit :
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 12:07 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org <mailto:antoine@python.org>> wrote:
Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry Warsaw a écrit : > >> Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-) > > I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful! What has become of the Discourse experiment?A Discourse experiment was never started. If you mean Zulip it's still going at python.zulipchat.com <http://python.zulipchat.com>.
I meant this, whatever it was: https://discuss.python.org/ :-)
I don't think Zulip works for structured discussion. I also find it slightly less usable than I expected.
Regards
Antoine.
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 13:10 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 22/05/2018 à 22:06, Brett Cannon a écrit :
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 12:07 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org <mailto:antoine@python.org>> wrote:
Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry Warsaw a écrit : > >> Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest.:-)
> > I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful! What has become of the Discourse experiment?A Discourse experiment was never started. If you mean Zulip it's still going at python.zulipchat.com <http://python.zulipchat.com>.
I meant this, whatever it was: https://discuss.python.org/ :-)
Ah, that never went anywhere because it was just a short experiment that the overload-sig did. If people wanted to do a serious experiment with it then we can discuss it over on core-workflow.
I don't think Zulip works for structured discussion. I also find it slightly less usable than I expected.
Why specifically? Do you still find IRC more usable? Just trying to understand how Discourse would be different enough to solve the issue you're having.
-Brett
Regards
Antoine.
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/
Le 24/05/2018 à 18:54, Brett Cannon a écrit :
I don't think Zulip works for structured discussion. I also find it slightly less usable than I expected.Why specifically? Do you still find IRC more usable?
Um, no. But I find Zulip's way of grouping discussions by day *then* by topic makes things a bit confusing and not very easy to follow. It seems designed for people who log in every day.
Just trying to understand how Discourse would be different enough to solve the issue you're having.
Which issue exactly? Zulip is decent as a chat system. It wouldn't really work for PEP discussions, IMO. That's why I asked about Discourse.
Regards
Antoine.
On Thu, 24 May 2018 at 10:45 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 24/05/2018 à 18:54, Brett Cannon a écrit :
I don't think Zulip works for structured discussion. I also find it slightly less usable than I expected.Why specifically? Do you still find IRC more usable?
Um, no. But I find Zulip's way of grouping discussions by day *then* by topic makes things a bit confusing and not very easy to follow. It seems designed for people who log in every day.
Ah, you must be reading Zulip through "All Messages". I personally read each topic individually by pressing "n" to navigate through each topic with an unread message, otherwise I too lose too much context.
Just trying to understand how Discourse would be different enough to solve the issue you're having.
Which issue exactly? Zulip is decent as a chat system. It wouldn't really work for PEP discussions, IMO. That's why I asked about Discourse.
Fair enough. Would you want a PEPs section and then some naming convention per thread to denote which PEP a thread is about?
Le 24/05/2018 à 20:02, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> Just trying to > understand how Discourse would be different enough to solve the issue > you're having. Which issue exactly? Zulip is decent as a chat system. It wouldn't really work for PEP discussions, IMO. That's why I asked about Discourse.Fair enough. Would you want a PEPs section and then some naming convention per thread to denote which PEP a thread is about?
That could work. I'm not acquainted with Discourse, are there subsections?
On May 24, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 24/05/2018 à 20:02, Brett Cannon a écrit :
Just trying to understand how Discourse would be different enough to solve the issue you're having.
Which issue exactly? Zulip is decent as a chat system. It wouldn't really work for PEP discussions, IMO. That's why I asked about Discourse.
Fair enough. Would you want a PEPs section and then some naming convention per thread to denote which PEP a thread is about?
That could work. I'm not acquainted with Discourse, are there subsections?
Yes, you can nest sections as deeply as you want, but the sections are typically static (I mean they can change over time, but making one per PEP would be a weird use of discourse).
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
[I think my other response got dropped, so apologies for any duplicates]
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to require that for each PEP a new GitHub *repo* be created whose contents would just be a draft PEP and whose issue tracker and PR manager would be used to debate the PEP and propose specific changes.
I don't think I'd want to see tons of new PEP repos under the current
pythonorganization. Maybe we should create a new organization for this experiment?
Hm, what's the cost of those extra repos? As long as they have consistent names (e.g. pep-1234) they're easy to ignore right? Or does GitHub have a quota of repos per org?
Also, since non-core devs can and do create PEPs, the permission management will be different than the normal repos. Clearly the PEP authors should be owners of the individual repos, but they should probably also decide how merges happen, and who else can contribute to their repo.
It also means that PEP editors probably have an additional responsibility to create the PEP repo.
I was thinking of a workflow where the pep author initially creates the repo under their own username and directs discussion there. Then when their PEP is accepted (or rejected!) they can donate their repo to the python org. I know such a thing is possible (we did it for the mypy and typeshed repos).
PEP 1's Discussions-To header can probably be co-opted for the URL to the GH repo. Right now, that field is described as an email address, but it would be appropriate IMHO to also allow a URL for discussions.
Sure.
Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-)
I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful!
Ironically for me GitHub is less linear than email. It's easier to ask people to open a new issue than it is to ask them to start a new thread. So e.g. if a discussion starts about a survey of feature X in various languages, when it veers off into a tutorial for a specific language that could be a separate issue, and the meta-discussion on how the list of languages should be selected could be made another issue.
OTOH, it seems like a low-cost experiment to try so if there's a volunteer who wants to be the guinea pig, I'm fine with it.
I think Mark Shannon volunteered PEP 576 (though so far he hasn't created a separate repo, he's just created a PR for the peps repo IIUC). I hope Nick will also volunteer PEP 577 for this.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
participants (5)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Brett Cannon -
Donald Stufft -
Guido van Rossum