On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 3:14:20 PM Barry Warsaw <
barry@python.org> wrote:
On Dec 02, 2014, at 07:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>No because only two people have said they like the experiment idea so
>that's not exactly enough to say it's worth the effort. =) Plus GitHub
>could be chosen in the end.
Experimenting could be useful, although if the traffic is disproportionate
(e.g. peps are updated way more often than devinabox) or folks don't interact
with each of the repos, it might not be very representative. Still, I think
it's better to get a visceral sense of how things actually work than to
speculate about how they *might* work.
That's my thinking. It's more about the workflow than measuring engagement on GitHub vs. Bitbucket (we already know how that skews). If I had my wish we would put the same repo in all three scenarios, but that is just asking for merge headaches.
But I think if we go to the community and say, "help us test dev workflows by submitting spelling and grammar fixes" then we should quickly get an idea of the workflows (and I purposefully left devinabox out of a move since it is never touched after it essentially became a build script and a README and so represents our existing workflow; any benefit on our own infrastructure can go straight to cpython anyway which we can all experience).