GitHub comments do get partial points for the editing requirement. You
can edit them including, I believe, with strikethrough for an audit
trail. But doing that a lot could well leave behind something quite
incoherent while a document would admit reorganisations.
We could also have both? A GitHub issue for while people are in
discussion mode and want to respond to points made by others (using rich
formatting not available here) which gets reduced to a wiki page by some
good soul once most of the dust has settled. The wiki page then
receives ongoing editing from the community like any other wiki page.
I'm happy with whatever folks find valuable and I'm also happy to do
editing work if we land on something that requires that from someone.
On 2022/01/04 21:14, Ted Dunning wrote:
Exactly. I very much had in mind an "On the other hand" kind of document.
The super benefit of a non-threaded presentation is that if I advocate
something stupid due to an oversight on my part, I can go back and edit
away the stupid statement (since it shouldn't be part of the consensus)
and tag anybody who might have responded. I might even leave a note
saying "You might think X, but that isn't so because of Y" to help later
readers.
That is all very, very hard to do in threaded discussions.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:37 AM James Turton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ah, and I see now that you said as much already. So a collaboratively
edited document? Wiki pages containing a variety of independent views
might turn out something like this collection I suppose
https://wiki.c2.com/?GarbageCollection
<https://wiki.c2.com/?GarbageCollection>
which isn't bad IMHO.
On 2022/01/04 16:42, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Threading is exactly what I would want to avoid.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022, 3:58 AM James Turton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> GitHub Issues allow a conversation thread with rich
formatting so I
> propose that we use them for meaty topics like this. Please
use the
> "Feature Request" issue template for this purpose, and set
the issue's
> Project field to "Drill 2.0"[1], said project having recently
been
> created by Charles. I am busy transcribing the current
discussion from
> the mailing list and a GitHub PR to just such a new feature
request at
>
> https://github.com/apache/drill/issues/2421
<https://github.com/apache/drill/issues/2421>
> <https://github.com/apache/drill/issues/2421
<https://github.com/apache/drill/issues/2421>>
>
> James
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/drill/projects/1
<https://github.com/apache/drill/projects/1>
> <https://github.com/apache/drill/projects/1
<https://github.com/apache/drill/projects/1>>
>
> On 2022/01/04 09:49, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > I wonder if there isn't a better place for this discussion?
> >
> > As you point out, there are many threads and many of the
points
> are rather
> > contentious technically. That will make them even harder to
> follow in an
> > email thread.
> >
> > We could just use the wiki and format the text in the form of
> questions
> > with alternative positions.
> >
> > Or we could use an open google document with similar form.
> >
> > What's the preference here?
> >
>
