On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org> wrote: > >> This brings me to my questions > >> > >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > >> having major decisions just in Github PRs? > >> > >> 2) How can we retain enough information on BPO to keep it useful as > >> research database for past decisions? > > > > It's OK to have the discussions on GitHub, but one of the > > responsibilities of reviewers is to ensure that significant design > > decisions are summarised on the related tracker issue for future > > reference. > > I don't think that's a good idea, since the core devs then > have to check what's good discussion to have on Github PRs > and what not. > > IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people > to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code reviews.
I agree with Mark-Andre here. It will take effort on our part to make our culture be "discuss on BPO", but it will produce a much superior history to what github PRs produce, so I think it is worth it. --David _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/