Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: >> Which social website do you have in mind? >> >> I can ask @alphapapa from /r/orgmode. >> >> I guess we can also ask people hanging out on Doom discord and >> discourse. >> >> Maybe also Org roam people. They have discourse. > > I'm short of additional ideas. This is a good

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Discourse does allow anonymous email replies. > https://blog.discourse.org/2016/07/reply-by-email-enabled-for-all-discourse-customers/ > (search "unregistered") I did not know that - thanks for the pointer. I'd interested in exploring a use-case: does anyone know of a

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

Tim Cross writes: > Given that Discourse is open source and free (in GNU sense being GPL > v2), perhaps a better approach would be to try and get the FSF to host a > Discourse server from GNU projects (not just org). This would be in > addition to the mail lists hosting currently provided. I

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > I don't think we should try to bridge the current mailing list with a > Discourse instance. One heavy blocker is that the Discourse instance > will not accept incoming emails from people who are not registered on > the instance. Discourse does allow anonymous email replies.

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Which social website do you have in mind? > > I can ask @alphapapa from /r/orgmode. > > I guess we can also ask people hanging out on Doom discord and > discourse. > > Maybe also Org roam people. They have discourse. I'm short of additional ideas. This is a good start

Re: IM dev discussions?

I don't think we should try to bridge the current mailing list with a Discourse instance. One heavy blocker is that the Discourse instance will not accept incoming emails from people who are not registered on the instance. If someone wants to set up a Discourse instance dedicated to the Org

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

"Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:25 PM Tim Cross wrote: > >> Discourse is not free - either you have to pay or you have to self host. > > IIRC, it is for open source projects. > > Yes: > > https://blog.discourse.org/2018/11/free-hosting-for-open-source-v2/ > > Bruce Thanks

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Do note that I sometimes referred to reddit/SO questions in patches. > Should we avoid this? Yes. If someone reports a bug on reddit/SO/X we should encourage her/him to fill it on the list. If he/she doesn't, we should fill it ourselve there for the record, adding

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:25 PM Tim Cross wrote: > Discourse is not free - either you have to pay or you have to self host. IIRC, it is for open source projects. Yes: https://blog.discourse.org/2018/11/free-hosting-for-open-source-v2/ Bruce

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Payas Relekar writes: > >> Perhaps we can check if it is indeed possible to bridge both Discourse >> and mailing list seamlessly (or close enough). There are some issues >> with extra chrome and clutter in discourse notifications, but these 2 >> links are what I found

Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

Payas Relekar writes: > Perhaps we can check if it is indeed possible to bridge both Discourse > and mailing list seamlessly (or close enough). There are some issues > with extra chrome and clutter in discourse notifications, but these 2 > links are what I found in 5 minutes of googling. A more

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> Maybe we can nicely ask moderators/active users of reddit/SO to redirect >> people to Org ML when appropriate? Similar to our current effort with >> contributor stewards. > > That's a very good idea! > > If these contributor stewards agree, we can

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > Our commit messages should only refer to public archives of the Org > mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/ or > https://list.orgmode.org). > > If a discussion on #org-mode or a GitHub repository is relevant for > Org development, it has to be

Re: IM dev discussions?

Payas Relekar writes: > Admittedly I am yet to try it, but it can also provide filtering to mute > particular categories so they don't clutter your mailbox :) > > Replying to discourse notification emails has worked well in my experience, > and there are apparently ways to create new posts by

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > But then at some point we will have two problems: we will need to > spend energy encouraging these Discourse users send their patches to > the mailing list and people on this ML who are mostly here to help > others will have to split their time and attention between the ML

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Does #org-mode share such a strong stand? I don't know. People in charge of the #org-mode channel should decide. I'm fine with Org referring to #org-mode in both cases. > If so, it may be problematic even to quote the discussions there in Org > commit messages. >

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Ihor, Ihor Radchenko writes: > Maybe we can nicely ask moderators/active users of reddit/SO to redirect > people to Org ML when appropriate? Similar to our current effort with > contributor stewards. That's a very good idea! If these contributor stewards agree, we can even advertise their

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Timothy, Timothy writes: > Both these things may not come together, or at the same time. For instance, > I’m > currently talking to someone on the Doom discord who has a few potential > improvement to Org in the works, and the main barrier to us hearing about them > is their nervousness at

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Timothy, Timothy writes: > Yep, but I do think it’s good to have a few promoted places, ideally based on > FOSS services. Not to start another tangent, but this is one of the reasons > why > I think discourse could be a good idea — as a FOSS replacement for reddit, > stackoverflow, etc. If

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Russell Adams writes: >> AFAIU, this should be supported by the IRC server. Does irc.libera.chat >> (where #org-mode channel is hosted) support logging? > > There is no log today. > > Also our parent channel #emacs prohibits logging. > > https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsChannelLogging Does

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: >> Ideally, it would be nice to >> have ML front-end that looks similar to GitHub issues. I recall the >> latest versions of mailman had somewhat familiar look. Sourcehut is also >> trying to implement a web-based front-end (though is it not familiar at >> all, unfortunately). >

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Hi, On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 at 11:36, Ihor Radchenko wrote: >> Look at this example from Guix IRC channel: >> https://logs.guix.gnu.org/ > > AFAIU, this should be supported by the IRC server. Does irc.libera.chat > (where #org-mode channel is hosted) support logging? These logs are done by custom

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 11:36:46AM +0800, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Jean Louis writes: > > > For IRC, there are ways to record history, and I am sure that > > such history may be recorded with referencable hyperlinks. > > > > Look at this example from Guix IRC channel: > >

Re: IM dev discussions?

On Sunday, 25 Sep 2022 at 18:53, Timothy wrote: >> It’s good to be able to connect to Matrix via Emacs: I will try this >> myself soon. > > I haven’t tried this myself yet, but it sounds quite promising! I’d be > interested to hear how you find it. (ement.el) Working quite well. Rapid

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Bastien, Just one quick comment on a certain part of your email. > I expect potential candidates to be okay with the GNU recommendation of trying > to avoid GitHub for ethical reasons and to be fine with working by email, the > old way. Both these things may not come together, or at the same

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Familiarity is important. I agree with all what you said. > Ideally, it would be nice to > have ML front-end that looks similar to GitHub issues. I recall the > latest versions of mailman had somewhat familiar look. Sourcehut is also > trying to implement a web-based

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Bastien, > I’m all for places where people can freely discuss anything related to > Org. There are already many such places: #org-mode and #org-mode-fr > on IRC, r/org-mode on reddit.com, stackoverflow.com, etc. Yep, but I do think it’s good to have a few promoted places, ideally based on

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > Tim Cross writes: > >> FB is what their parents use and email is what their >> grandparents use! > > So true, but quite painful to read on a mailing list ;) Then how should Timothy feel? :)

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Timothy, Timothy writes: > Doing something similar for Org development is an interesting idea. Something > similar probably could be set up with the Org room, or a dedicated Org-dev > room > (I’m aware of Bastien’s thoughts on wanting development and help to not be > separated, but while I

Re: IM dev discussions?

Tim Cross writes: > FB is what their parents use and email is what their > grandparents use! So true, but quite painful to read on a mailing list ;) -- Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Hi Ihor, > Jean Louis writes: > >> For IRC, there are ways to record history, and I am sure that >> such history may be recorded with referencable hyperlinks. >> >> Look at this example from Guix IRC channel: >> > > AFAIU, this should be supported by the IRC server.

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Jean Louis writes: > For IRC, there are ways to record history, and I am sure that > such history may be recorded with referencable hyperlinks. > > Look at this example from Guix IRC channel: > https://logs.guix.gnu.org/ AFAIU, this should be supported by the IRC server. Does irc.libera.chat

Re: IM dev discussions?

* Tim Cross [2022-09-24 05:10]: > messenger is probably just to IM with their parents!). From their > perspective, FB is what their parents use and email is what their > grandparents use! No way will they use a mail list. That may be the trend within a generation. Though there are interest

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

* Ihor Radchenko [2022-09-21 11:15]: > The disadvantage of IRC is absence of message history. > Without history, small-sized channels like I am proposing (dedicated to > Org mode devs) are not very useful. We live in different time zones and > countries. >From Org master view point, every

Re: IM dev discussions?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Is there is possibility to merge multiple rooms in Matrix/IRC? There is! It is called Spaces, which allows arbitrary hierarchy of other rooms (as well as spaces). NixOS organisation and its various sub-groups are already quite successfully utilizing it, if you'd like to

Re: IM dev discussions?

Mark Barton writes: >> You will likely find more young people >> who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don't know if that >> is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also >> the types of people more attracted to email for comms. > > > My trend has been

Re: IM dev discussions?

Timothy writes: > I find that very interesting to hear. It reminds me that the bcachefs matrix > room (which I hang out in),which has a Jitsi widget. Over there it seems that > occasionally the lead developer and the main other contributor seem to hang > out > there while working on the

Re: IM dev discussions?

> On Sep 23, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Tim Cross wrote: > > You will likely find more young people > who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don't know if that > is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also > the types of people more attracted to email for

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Tim, > I observe the same behaviour. My kids (27, 24) both have email accounts, > but only have them and use them for places which insist on an email > address (like government services, universities etc). They use email > only when they have to and check it only when they are expecting a >

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > Of course, time and skills (and other psychological traits) are the > main parameters deciding whether someone can participate to these > discussions: but the more they take place on the mailing list, the > more inclusive they are IMHO. > > (I know this opinion is debatable:

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: >> Sure. It is always nice to have historical records on why certain >> decisions have been made. > > It is not just to be able to keep track of discussions that led to > decisions: it is also to be able to be as *inclusive* as possible. > > Of course, time and skills (and other

Re: IM dev discussions?

Thanks for your answers. Ihor Radchenko writes: >> In general, Org contributors with push access can fix bugs directly, >> without announcing this on the mailing list. But *all other changes* >> should be submitted and discussed on this mailing list. > > Sure. It is always nice to have

Re: Matrix (was Re: IM dev discussions?)

Tim Cross writes: > One thing I do find frustrating these days is the fracturing of > communications across so many different solutions. +100. I believe this is real plague for the Free Software movement. Many projects use Slack, Discord, other unfair services or private IM applications for

Re: Matrix (was Re: IM dev discussions?)

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Tim Cross writes: > >> One thing I do find frustrating these days is the fracturing of >> communications across so many different solutions. Makes me really miss >> newsgroups! It seems like almost every project I'm interested in these >> days is using a different

Re: Matrix (was Re: IM dev discussions?)

Tim Cross writes: > One thing I do find frustrating these days is the fracturing of > communications across so many different solutions. Makes me really miss > newsgroups! It seems like almost every project I'm interested in these > days is using a different solution for IM. (one reason I

Re: IM dev discussions?

Bastien writes: > But IMO there is an even stronger argument: in the case of Org, we > should encourage discussions where both "users" and "developers" can > chime in. Because many Org users are potential contributors. (This > would not be the same with another Free Software project, of

Matrix (was Re: IM dev discussions?)

Bastien writes: > Hi Ihor, > > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> This is an option. #emacs is very too noisy for me, but #org-mode >> appears to be fairly quiet. It may work. > > I agree with Russell that we should first use the available resources, > and our IRC chan on irc.libera.chat is a good

Re: IM dev discussions?

Hi Ihor, Ihor Radchenko writes: > This is an option. #emacs is very too noisy for me, but #org-mode > appears to be fairly quiet. It may work. I agree with Russell that we should first use the available resources, and our IRC chan on irc.libera.chat is a good one. (I'm actually there BTW,

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Russell Adams writes: > The #org-mode channel has a large footprint already, though lower > utilization than #emacs. There are 230 org users online right now. > > It would be great to see some dev discussions on IRC, and if we ever > get too much traffic, maybe make a #org-mode-dev channel. > >

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:59:14AM +0200, Russell Adams wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 04:05:56PM +0800, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > > Russell Adams writes: > > > > >> I am wondering if we could create a common Org dev matrix room for quick > > >> discussions and then copy the transcript to the

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 04:05:56PM +0800, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Russell Adams writes: > > >> I am wondering if we could create a common Org dev matrix room for quick > >> discussions and then copy the transcript to the relevant ML thread, when > >> necessary. > > > > We have an IRC channel for

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Russell Adams writes: >> I am wondering if we could create a common Org dev matrix room for quick >> discussions and then copy the transcript to the relevant ML thread, when >> necessary. > > We have an IRC channel for real time chat. Join in anytime. The disadvantage of IRC is absence of

Re: IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 05:22:50PM +0800, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > The problem with the list is that emails often have ~minutes overheads. > It sometimes takes unnecessary extra time to discuss small > clarifications on list. > > I am wondering if we could create a common Org dev matrix room for

IM dev discussions? (was: orgmode.org welcome page says to install via MELPA but as writing, this cannot be done)

Bastien writes: > Timothy writes: > >> The whole top banner has become a bit messy, IMO. I’ll have a go at cleaning >> it >> up later today. > > As discussed on Matrix, please go ahead -- for future suggestions on > the website, it's fine to discuss them on this list. The problem with the