Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106901
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 12:42:07 +0200
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <f9a3a00b-da81-4028-9be9-3366fd4922eb@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8cBwXrdmfpBz6=Kt3ZM+X5fmVU+S+Op0JNhSEQ-GT4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c8EvfFPqjRJjJ3T-qTfLiWn7aZzCrGpk7R3yNFLT1qWjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1686643.PblvKQRnJp@mcmic-probook>
 <190b7291-812e-4337-bd09-950dc30c655a@Spark>
 <2157489.0uZv62oTo4@mcmic-probook>
 <CAF+90c8cBwXrdmfpBz6=Kt3ZM+X5fmVU+S+Op0JNhSEQ-GT4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5d74db04_836c40e_54f0"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)
From: brendt@stitcher.io (Brent)

--5d74db04_836c40e_54f0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Happy to read your thoughts on this Nikita, I think you've drawn some goo=
d conclusions.

If I may add a thought or two:

I wouldn't make any final decisions based on one experiment, especially a=
 big R=46C as this one. I think the GitHub discussion got extra attention=
 because it was the first one, and because of the scope of the R=46C. I w=
ould try to have two or three more R=46Cs discussed on GitHub, maybe smal=
ler ones=3F

Second, there are more things we can do in order to keep the main thread =
on topic. Three things come to mind:

=C2=A0- We could add community guidelines, clearly stating that R=46C com=
ments should stay on topic
=C2=A0- People could be appointed to moderate the comments, allowing cont=
ributors to focus on the code instead of community management
=C2=A0- Conversations on GitHub can be locked as a last measurement. Repo=
sitory members can still comment.

I fear that separating the main discussion from the PR will cause unneces=
sary confusion: important, generals remarks could be made on the =22main =
thread=22, and I think there's value in keeping these remarks together wi=
th everything else.

Kind regards
Brent
On 6 Sep 2019, 16:48 +0200, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv=40gmail.com>, wrote:=

> Here are my own thoughts on how the pull request discussion for union t=
ypes
> went...
>
> I think the main takeaway for me is that inline comments (on specific l=
ines
> in the R=46C) were really invaluable. Each comment thread discussed a
> specific issue and most of them have resulted in a direct improvement t=
o
> the R=46C.
>
> Generally there was a lot of discussion of specific technical details t=
hat
> we very rarely see in R=46C discussions. Current R=46C discussions on t=
he
> mailing list tend to be rather high level (which is fine in itself), wi=
th
> nobody ever discussing the details (which is very bad).
>
> Thinking back to https://wiki.php.net/rfc/engine=5Fwarnings, I think th=
at R=46C
> could have really benefited from this discussion medium. While the mail=
ing
> list discussion ended up talking circles around more or less one single=

> question (undefined variables), pretty much none of the other parts of =
the
> R=46C have seen so much as a comment. I'm sure that there would be a lo=
t more
> discussion regarding specific classifications if this went up as a pull=

> request.
>
> Another nice thing is that it's possible to mark a comment thread as
> resolved, once the R=46C has been adjusted to address the comments. Tha=
t way
> you don't have to see issues that were already addressed (though you ca=
n if
> you like).
>
> Having thumbs-up and thumbs-down reactions to comments was also helpful=
 to
> judge whether some comment represents a minority opinion or not, someth=
ing
> that is notoriously hard with current mailing list discussions (which a=
re
> almost dominated by =22negative=22 opinions which mysteriously don't sh=
ow up in
> voting results).
>
> However, while the inline comments were pleasantly insightful, the same=

> cannot be said for the top-level comments on the pull request. The majo=
rity
> of them was borderline off-topic. While some in principle interesting
> discussion happened there, it simply didn't belong in the R=46C thread =
for
> union types. The top-level comments also suffered from a lack of thread=
ing
> -- I would have been less bothered about tangential discussions if they=

> were threaded. (To be fair: I use gmail, so I don't get threading on th=
e
> mailing list either.)
>
> If this kind of discussion behavior is representative, then I would sug=
gest
> a workflow alone the following lines...
>
> * R=46Cs are submitted as PRs on GitHub, but must be announced on the m=
ailing
> list.
> * The PR description should have a fat warning that top-level comments
> belong on the mailing list. We can mark all top-level comments on PRs a=
s
> =22off-topic=22 as a matter of general policy.
> * Top-level commentary stays on the mailing list.
>
> This is a shift from what I originally had in mind (completely moving t=
he
> R=46C process to GitHub), towards providing a way for more detailed and=

> specific feedback on the R=46C text.
>
> Regarding GitHub as a 3rd party. I think there are a few things to
> considered:
> * We're already very heavily reliant on GitHub. Most of my day-to-day
> interaction with PHP core development is via GitHub and most of the
> day-to-day decisions also happen there. Only the major stuff everhits t=
his
> mailing list.
> * The R=46C repo would of course be hosted on git.php.net as usual and =
only
> be mirrored to GitHub.
> * GitHub would not be the exclusive venue for R=46C discussion. All R=46=
Cs are
> still announced on internals and the top-level discussion can and shoul=
d
> still happen here.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm trying to draw conclusions here from an experiment with=
 a
> sample size of 1, which may not be representative. Union types are a pr=
etty
> significant proposal (and also the first one to be on GH), and other,
> smaller proposals might well have different discussion dynamics.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM C=C3=B4me Chilliet <come=40opensides.be=
> wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 5 septembre 2019, 12:04:55 CEST Brent a =C3=A9crit :
> > > > Huge =22no=22 from me on using github for discussing R=46Cs.
> > >
> > > Care to elaborate why=3F The majority seems to like it. Though I am=
 also
> > curious about Nikita's experience with it, as he is the one having to=

> > process the feedback.
> >
> > Because the PHP project should avoid depending on a privately owned
> > centralized service for its technical discussions, and should not enc=
ourage
> > (some would say force) people to use such platforms.
> >
> > PHP is already on github but it=E2=80=99s only a mirror, the main git=
 repository
> > is at git.php.net .
> >
> > C=C3=B4me
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >

--5d74db04_836c40e_54f0--