[python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

[R. David Murray]

On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes <christian at 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