[Twisted-Python] Moving Twisted off Trac and SVN to somewhere nicer

[Thomas Hervé]

Le 01/07/2011 15:44, Itamar Turner-Trauring a écrit :
> On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 15:23 +0200, Laurens Van Houtven wrote:
> 
> 
>> Well, part of the hypothesis of the effects of moving to Github is
>> that a) the clear separation between "core contributor" and "random
>> contributor" because a bit more subtle, b) it becomes easier for
>> external contributors to contribute. So yeah, I guess it is, but it'd
>> be cool if it became a bit more open to contributions from the more
>> general public :)
> 
> I'm not sure getting more patches should be our main goal, for now.
> (It's a good *long term* goal!).

At least personally, moving away from SVN and Trac is not to directly
get more patches. It's mainly that I want as a contributor to use better
tools. Also, I don't want us to maintain the infrastructure; for
example, moving to a more recent Trac cost me personally a good amount
of time; we also have that problem with spam.


> We have a large number of uncommitted third-party patches in tickets. We
> have a large number of half-finished developer branches (I'm working on
> a couple, since it's an easy way to get things done). These were not
> left uncommitted or unfinished because of tool problems, but because of
> other issues. Dealing with this seems to me to be higher priority than
> getting even more patches we won't get around to incorporating.
> 
> If you want more contributions, improving the processes so abandonment
> is less likely to happen is the first step. I can certainly think of
> ways in which e.g. github might help with that, but this is not a
> *technical* problem, it's an organizational and social problem, and at
> the very least you should think about how to solve it before redoing all
> the technical infrastructure. For example, making sure all reviewable
> tickets get reviewed within 7 days, and all new tickets get an answer
> within 3 days.
> 
> If a switch github is super-successful in getting us more patches, and
> then those patches sit in limbo forever, all we've done is alienate
> potential developers.

Well, that logic is a bit flawed though: you're kind of saying that we
shouldn't use a better tool because it may bring us more contributors
than we can handle. At the end of the day, we would still use a better
tool though.

-- 
Thomas