Hi, On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I see that sympy, for example, has only one mailing list, and that >> works extremely well. I'd be interested to hear from the Cython and >> IPython guys as to whether they feel the user / devel split has helped >> or hurt. Ferando? Dag? > > There's evidence that projects can work successfully in either mode > (single/dual lists), so I don't think this is a completely clear-cut > question with a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer. What matters most is > finding for each project and community what works best, and I think > the main factor should be how truly disjoint are the topics and > typical threads of the two lists. > > Before talking about IPython, we can consider Python itself, where > there's a very clear division between the general and dev lists, and > even the dev list has been recently split with a new 'ideas' list > where more exploratory threads can take place, so that -dev can remain > 100% focused on active, concrete development work on the main Python > repo. And that strong separation of lists (which python-dev enforces > strictly by calmly but firmly redirecting threads to other lists as > soon as they seem off-topic for the narrow python-dev focus), seems to > work pretty well for them. > > As far as IPython, I personally do prefer the separated lists, and I > think it works quite well for us. IPython is a project often used by > python beginners for simple learning of basic programming, and they > just want to know how to tab-complete or how to get plots to run in > non-blocking mode. Our -dev list is relatively high-traffic and with > a weird mix of topics, given the rather eclectic nature of IPython: we > have qt discussions, parallel computing, low-level networking/zeromq, > javascript/web issues, protocol API threads, etc. All that can be > overwhelming for novices (though obviously one hopes that novices > would gradually learn from that and become interested in being > developers). > > I think this is how I'd summarize it: > > - having two lists is friendlier to beginners, as it gives them an > environment in which to ask questions that they may feel more > comfortable in, because the level of the discussions tends to be not > as complex as what happens in a -dev list. > > - but the cost it has is that it insulates users a bit more from the > development ideas, perhaps lowering the likelihood that they will > catch on to the development conversations and dig deeper into the > project. > > My cartoon view of it would be: > > a. novice person | user list || dev list > > b. novice person || combined list > > where the | bars indicate 'barriers': in (a), a novice has a low > barrier to become a good user, but a higher barrier to transfer into > developer. With (b), there is no clear barrier to becoming a > developer, but it's more intimidating for new users to join. > > I have heard (but I only have anecdotal evidence) of users saying that > they feel more comfortable asking questions in user-only lists because > of the level of the discussion, and that they can read all messages > and learn something without having to filter threads that are way over > their heads. > > > Long answer, I know... But in short, I'm happy having two lists for > IPython: I prefer to have the first transition (gaining active users) > to be the easiest to make, because I think once users have become > confident, the cost of digging deeper into development is actually > pretty low. > > But I'm sure other projects can and have successfully made the opposite > choice.
Fernando - you told me a week or so ago that you'd come across a blog post or similar advocating a single list - do you remember the reference? Thanks, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
