I thought gitbox was still an alternative to having to use GitHub to submit PRs. That said, it wouldn’t be for discussions, etc.
Ralph > On Aug 14, 2024, at 3:31 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think that to "deactivate" the mailing lists you refer to would be very > bad and might not even be allowed by Apache. > > You cannot/shouldn't force people to create a GitHub (Microsoft) account > just to talk to us. > > Odd as it sounds, I've had someone told me they would not submit a PR > because they did not want to create a GH account. It feels > counterproductive from my POV not to submit PRs but it shouldn't lock > people out. > > There might also be parts of the world where GH is not available but Apache > servers are (more of a geopolitical issue). > > Gary > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 3:43 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Gary, >> >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 12:15, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> While it is a different community, I have received negative feedback in >>> Commons against the trend to spread information all over the place, and >> we >>> don't use GitHub. >>> >>> The TLDR is that in the past it was easier to find information because >> you >>> only had the mailing list and later Jira. Now you have multiple mailing >>> lists, Jira, emails from GitHub, plus discussions in GitHub PRs, plus >>> Slack. Adding to the list is GitHub issues... >> >> Might I propose a split of concerns between GH Discussions and the >> mailing lists: >> >> * We use GH Discussions as a replacement for `log4j-user`, >> `log4net-user`, `log4cxx-user`. Two of these mailing lists are dead >> anyway, since subscribing to a ML for a one-off question is a hustle. >> * We use `dev@logging` as always for reaching consensus and decisions >> concerning the directions we choose for development. >> >> BTW: Can we deactivate all the mailing lists except `dev`, `private` >> and `security`? >> >> Piotr >>
