+1 For me the main argument is that the discoverability is much better than the ML.
A point to note, enabling discussions requires setting a ML that they are mirrored to. So we could use users@ for that but that might be confusing, so discussions@ or something might be better. For rust we used github@ for now. Am Sa., 15. März 2025 um 16:47 Uhr schrieb Bryce Mecum <bryceme...@gmail.com>: > > I think this is a good idea. > > A possible reason for hesitation is that it provides us yet another > stream that requires maintainer attention. But it also occurs to me > that a new stream of information on GitHub may be significantly more > accessible than a stream on a mailing list or third-party website (SO, > Zulip) so it may be easier for non-maintainers to help. > > GitHub Discussions also offers categories and polls which may be interesting. > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 8:07 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It seems that we can enable GitHub Discussions by .asf.yaml: > > > > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/blob/main/README.md#repository-features > > > > Do we want to enable GitHub Discussions for apache/arrow? > > We can use GitHub Discussions for user support like > > u...@arrow.apache.org. > > > > See also: > > "[DISCUSS] Deprecate user@ in favor for github issues/discussions" > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/1m2f7lzcxfplzgjhvsrv66k0d2b4ws87 > > > > FYI: apache/arrow-rs uses GitHub Discussions: > > * https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/discussions > > * "[Rust] Enable GitHub discussions for Rust projects?" > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/o8d50n8fv989knxcqvnhosbg4fnzdlf8 > > > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > kou
