4 ms·

Hi bzg, I'm an ex-org-mode contributor (we've worked together in the past!) and I do strongly agree that hosting development on GitHub or GitLab encourages peop

Hi bzg, I'm an ex-org-mode contributor (we've worked together in the past!) and I do strongly agree that hosting development on GitHub or GitLab encourages people and reduces friction and is what all (yes) open source projects should do. I still write emacs-lisp packages for MELPA, but I absolutely hate the way that development of packages that have been folded into emacs is hidden behind opaque mailing-list based procedures, and apparently with little code review. Another concrete example is eglot: it is developed in the open on GitHub, which is great. But it is closely related to two other emacs packages: flymake and eldoc, which are developed via emacs-devel, or something, I've never really understood. So when changes need to be made in those packages it suddenly becomes very opaque, and I am not at all sure how much code review goes on. (This is not at all a criticism of João Távora who maintains all three I think! It is more structural and related to Emacs development in general.) It dissuades me from contributing to emacs in general. There is nothing advantageous about reviewing code by mailing list when we have GitHub and GitLab. For those of us who use GitHub and GitLab in our day jobs for code review and collaboration, it is really baffling and frustrating. Furthermore, although the org-mode mailing list is, I am sure, just as pleasant as it always way, lists like emacs-devel are incredibly toxic and depressing to read; a bunch of men arguing just like they did over IRC in the 80s and 90s. And good god, don't ever go near the #emacs IRC channel if you're not someone of that gender from that generation! I am sorry to say it but the emacs community has an atmosphere problem: it is common for people to be unpleasant in public. For example, the magit maintainer responded rudely, aggressively, and discouragingly to recent PRs against magit. Stallman's absurd one- or two- sentence replies. This is of course not Org-mode's fault; but I believe the future of Emacs development is to embrace GitHub / GitLab like other open source projects and leave the crusty 90s-era practices behind.

bzg 6y ago
Hi! Thanks for your feedback. I think the Org mailing list has a pretty good record of both useful and polite conversations. I don't know if the tone of conversations is different on mailing lists vs. web UIs like issues, PRs or code reviews. As I said in another reply, I guess we can somehow reconcile both worlds by allowing PRs to be sent as patches to a mailing list - I guess https://sr.ht https://sr.ht could support something like this (if it does not already). The thing with the whole "entry barrier" point of people who want Org-mode development to happen on Git(Lab|Hub) is that they miss the point: I don't want more contributions, I want more engaged contributors, more committed support of any kind. I find emails to be more engaging than emojis on a web interface - and I use both on a daily basis, so perhaps I don't deserve my #okboomer yet :)
- yyoncho 6y ago
  > The thing with the whole "entry barrier" point of people who want Org-mode development to happen on Git(Lab|Hub) is that they miss the point: I don't want more contributions, I want more engaged contributors, more committed support of any kind. If you want more engaged contributors you need more occasional contributors. Some of them will grow into core contributors or co-maintainers. Putting more obstacles is not the way to filter the out less engaged and keep the committed one but way to discourage the potential valuable contributors. That is why being on github where practically all of the OSS is happening is important(even being is gitlab won't have the optimal effect).
tarsius 6y ago
> For example, the magit maintainer responded rudely, aggressively, and discouragingly to recent PRs against magit. Stallman's absurd one- or two- sentence replies. I must reject that unfounded criticism. I looked at all PRs since May and the only one that I rejected without much of a justification is https://github.com/magit/magit/pull/4191 https://github.com/magit/magit/pull/4191. I have a hard time imagining how you justify going from that to your harsh choice of words. Luckily feedback is overwhelmingly positive, but because I have a thin skin, harsh criticism still hurts me and at least temporarily makes me lose motivation. > I am sorry to say it but the emacs community has an atmosphere problem: it is common for people to be unpleasant in public. I don't think it is common, but it does happen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- da39a3ee 6y ago
  Hi tarsius, I should have said "a PR" singular. I'm sorry but I did find your reply to me in the tiny PR I submitted to be dismissive and unfriendly. I love magit and think your work is fantastic and I don't have any reason to justify extending from that anecdote to any generalization about your maintenance style. Sorry to subject you to an anonymous and undocumented public criticism but the fact is that it was an anecdote that was in my brain about my recent experiences with emacs development.

bzg 6y ago

Hi! Thanks for your feedback. I think the Org mailing list has a pretty good record of both useful and polite conversations. I don't know if the tone of conversations is different on mailing lists vs. web UIs like issues, PRs or code reviews. As I said in another reply, I guess we can somehow reconcile both worlds by allowing PRs to be sent as patches to a mailing list - I guess https://sr.ht https://sr.ht could support something like this (if it does not already). The thing with the whole "entry barrier" point of people who want Org-mode development to happen on Git(Lab|Hub) is that they miss the point: I don't want more contributions, I want more engaged contributors, more committed support of any kind. I find emails to be more engaging than emojis on a web interface - and I use both on a daily basis, so perhaps I don't deserve my #okboomer yet :)

yyoncho 6y ago
> The thing with the whole "entry barrier" point of people who want Org-mode development to happen on Git(Lab|Hub) is that they miss the point: I don't want more contributions, I want more engaged contributors, more committed support of any kind. If you want more engaged contributors you need more occasional contributors. Some of them will grow into core contributors or co-maintainers. Putting more obstacles is not the way to filter the out less engaged and keep the committed one but way to discourage the potential valuable contributors. That is why being on github where practically all of the OSS is happening is important(even being is gitlab won't have the optimal effect).

tarsius 6y ago

> For example, the magit maintainer responded rudely, aggressively, and discouragingly to recent PRs against magit. Stallman's absurd one- or two- sentence replies. I must reject that unfounded criticism. I looked at all PRs since May and the only one that I rejected without much of a justification is https://github.com/magit/magit/pull/4191 https://github.com/magit/magit/pull/4191. I have a hard time imagining how you justify going from that to your harsh choice of words. Luckily feedback is overwhelmingly positive, but because I have a thin skin, harsh criticism still hurts me and at least temporarily makes me lose motivation. > I am sorry to say it but the emacs community has an atmosphere problem: it is common for people to be unpleasant in public. I don't think it is common, but it does happen.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
da39a3ee 6y ago
Hi tarsius, I should have said "a PR" singular. I'm sorry but I did find your reply to me in the tiny PR I submitted to be dismissive and unfriendly. I love magit and think your work is fantastic and I don't have any reason to justify extending from that anecdote to any generalization about your maintenance style. Sorry to subject you to an anonymous and undocumented public criticism but the fact is that it was an anecdote that was in my brain about my recent experiences with emacs development.