Bastien <b...@gnu.org> 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 course.)
Indeed. IM is mostly meant for quick brainstorming, which cannot be done in a reasonable time frame on ML. It worked quite nicely in communication between me and TEC. > If #org-mode can serve for both general questions and dev-oriented > discussion it's good. If it becomes annoying for many readers, then > setting up transient chans is okay (even on matrix), the same way it > is okay to sit in a room and hack/discuss possible new Org features > with peers. Agree. > 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 historical records on why certain decisions have been made. -- Ihor Radchenko, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/. Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode, or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92