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 normal functionality.
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

Reply via email to