2015-08-02 16:48 GMT+02:00 Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org>: > Hi Niklas > > > Am 02.08.2015 um 16:26 schrieb Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com>: > > > > 2015-08-02 15:29 GMT+02:00 Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>: > > > >>> On 2 August 2015 13:54:46 BST, Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > >>> We're discussing issues here, so what's wrong with an issue tracker? > >> > >> No, we're discussing every aspect of the project, from release > management > >> to personal introductions. > > > > > > Release management, RFCs and other things totally fit something I'd call > > issue. > > Personal introductions are a valid point, they're nothing I'd do with > > issues, that's something that fits here. > > > >> I can see more than one benefit. Probably most important is that you > >>> can > >>> follow just some things, instead of getting all the mails. > >> > >> I subscribe with a gmail account, filter the list into its own folder, > >> then pick out the threads I'm interested in using Thunderbird or K9 > Mail. > >> Most of the time there are only about half a dozen active threads > anyway. > >> > >>> Additionally, you > >>> can ping people, that's not possible here, most mails are just "reply > >>> all" > >>> messages. > >> > >> I CC'd you on this message; how is that not "pinging' you? Actually, > it's > >> a bit *too* easy, as a lot of the time "Reply to All" is simpler than > >> "Reply to List". Either way, that's a feature issue trackers have > borrowed > >> from forums rather than vice versa. > > > > > > It's probably because GMail lacks a clear indication here. There is one, > > but not eye-catching enough. > > Having a lot of clients to choose from with different features can > totally > > be a advantage, because everyone can choose the one that he / she likes > > best, but there are also disadvantages like a higher barrier for new > users > > or non-regular users. > > So basically we shall change a well established open source tool because > gmail isn't capable of handling an RFC and Some developers are unable to > setup their tools properly? Yes it is exagerating I know. But that' how I > currently feel about this topic.
I can see your point. I just think open source projects shouldn't have the need to setup a bunch of tools to contribute in a discussion. > > TBH, it's not just about communication on the mailing list here. PHP's > bug > > tracker is a real PITA, at least for users without a php.net account. > > I'm not sure why it's a PITA. you can search for issues without problems. > And if you miss certain functions you can open a PR. Yes, without karma you > can't change anything. Which - AFAIK - isn't possible in github or any > other issue-tracker as well. And that's what we are talking about here. > Not being able to change anything without karma is totally fine, PRs are a good and established way here. Problem is more that if you want to discuss things here, you'd have to setup the tools you were talking about, just to follow a single discussion. > > > > How about a tool like Phabricator? > > And why not Jira? Or bugzilla? Or Bitbucket? Or gitlab? or github? or ... > All of them would be better than the current PHP bug tracker, Phabricator was just an example for a open tool better than the current system. Hey, there isn't even a login for users without php.net account. > Why not use the existing tools and spend the time lost in such discussions > by instead making these tools awesome? > Yeah, good question, why was php-bugs created again? Regards, Niklas > Cheers > > Andreas >
