On 09/16/2016 01:14 AM, Joel Nothman wrote:
I think we're quite close to the intended users of Github, they just
started simple and with all these more feature-complete competitors
appear, are adding those features but haven't quite got it right yet.
I'm not convinced that it's the perfect tool (although I haven't seen
this threading problem; gmail seems to still be keeping one thread per
PR?), but its simplicity and familiarity/popularity is a great
advantage for handling new contributors. In terms of contributor
familiarity, most of the projects that we integrate with use same:
numpy, scipy, cython (recently), pandas, matplotlib, ipython. While I
appreciate that we are somewhat arbitrarily supporting a
near-monopoly, the case for moving away from, or even wrapping, github
seems poor to me.
Actually, both of these services don't require everyone to be using
them. The contributors could still be using github and get all the
It would just give us a better way to track things.
Apart from distinguishing between possible bug, actual bug and other
(which are fairly static categories), classifying issues by status is
too hard to manage. What I'd like to suggest is that we choose a way
to highlight high-priority issues for the next release, either through
the milestone feature, the project feature. Other issues will still
get attention by way of random traffic, but we care less about the
timing of their resolution.
Yeah, actually updating statuses is a lot of work, as I found out with
the "need contributor" tag. However, I think this might be the most
helpful tag for people wanting to contribute.
I'm happy with using the release tags more.
scikit-learn mailing list