paul <goodoldp...@autistici.org> writes:
> Hello Giovanni, > > I get that you really don't find the web based workflow to bring enough > advantages to justify the migration, but first please consider the picture > that > Katherine sent and that we are evaluating the adequateness of the email > medium as a FOSS contribution management tool over email. > > If we lower the bar for contributions more people are gonna be invested in > Guix and will have interest in becoming committer and reviewer. My > impression today is not that there aren't enough resources to cover reviews, > the bottleneck is the total time that committers are able to dedicate to > reviewing (potentially re-reviewing if some other non-committer contributor > has already done a first review) and actually commiting changes. > > I have many contributions opened more than a year ago where (sometimes also > because of me obviously, we're all working after work here) the > interactions on the issue are separated by many weeks, sometimes even months. > > To ease that bottleneck we just need to give more time to committers or to > increase the number of committers. All the automation and process changes > we evaluate should be focused on either one of this two goals. I don't have > evidence that any web forge will help (maybe someone has?), but I wouldn't > throw it out of the window just because it does not ease the current review > process. > > cheers > > giacomo To second this, I'd like to note for the record that on fedi at least 1-2 people told me that they chose Nix over Guix because they don't want to deal with the email based workflow. At least one of these people is a highly skilled programmer with decades of experience. While I mostly argued for Sourcehut, I think the pull-based alternatives should also be kept in mind.
