On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:06:39 -0400 Drew DeVault <s...@cmpwn.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, catching up on my emails now. Responding to Daniel > as the other emails don't have much actionable stuff, but I read > everything on this thread. Thanks for the feedback! > > On 2019-04-08 6:18 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On the mailing list front, I think wayland-devel@ is probably quiet > > enough these days - and focused on common protocol-like stuff - that > > we could probably just reuse that list. > > -1, it's way too noisy imo. Hi Drew, my feeling is that it's less than ten emails per day on average. That's a very low number, and a good portion, if not most of it, is already protocol design discussions or wayland-protocols review. Once wayland-protocols review moves to Gitlab, it will be much less. > > But that being said, I would strongly advocate for doing review > > through GitLab. For the implementations and users I can think of - > > Chromium, EFL, Enlightenment, Firefox, GStreamer, GTK, KWin, Mesa, > > Mutter, Qt, SDL, Weston, wlroots - plus Wayland core itself, all of > > them use web review tools (Bugzilla x1, Gerrit, GitHub, GitLab, > > Phabricator, Reitveld x1) as their sole review method with the > > exception of Mesa, which also allows mailing-list submissions. I get > > that sr.ht is working on a decent mailing-list review workflow, but > > what we have today with Patchwork definitely isn't that. > > I'll begrudgingly concede to patch review on Gitlab, even if it's 10x > more work to get your patches out there. I think that discussions ought > to stay on a mailing list, though. It's just a better medium for them, > and everyone has an email account. Would be interesting to hear what you think after you've submitted 5 MRs to the same project, to be able to see past the first-time setup cost. I agree about discussions though. They are good to have on a mailing list. In my opinion, currently there is no feature in Gitlab that would be suitable for discussions or questions that are not bug reports nor patch review. > > Given that, I'm prepared to push hard for using web-based review as > > the status-quo for how we all do our own protocol development anyway. > > I'll guess I'll just formally register a strong NACK, but I feel like > I'm shouting at a tree. > > I know it's hard to turn a blind eye to my vested interests in mailing > list driven development, but even on GNU mailman I prefer mailing lists. > There's a reason I built my platform that way, after all. I genuinely > think it's a better model. I find it somewhat strange that you advocate a mailing list workflow, but cannot or do not want to deal with that low average traffic as currently on wayland-devel@. What's the difference? Thanks, pq
pgpSOWOtFigi2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
