When an open-source project switches from using github/gitlab/etc issues for bug reports to using a Discourse instance for all discussion, it's a sign the project is falling apart.
Actual bug reports should be kept close to the source code. Support, sure, use a forum.
@gdorn Where do email lists fall into this, in your opinion?
@emsenn For bug reports? Maybe to check if it's an already-reported problem, for users who aren't great at searching bug trackers.
Basically, reporting a bug and participating in general discussion are two different things. Mixing them just makes finding legit bugs harder.
@gdorn So you disagree with how projects like Linux and Emacs and many many other core parts of the FOSS world handle their bug reports?
I'm just trying to make sure you're aware that you're basically saying all the biggest open-source projects do their bugtracking wrong, and if that's what you mean to say.
@gdorn Are you saying you're just comparing web-based GUI issue trackers against web-based GUI forums?
If so, then yes, I agree, the former is better, but I don't think it actually keeps the issue closer to the code like you argue - github issues keep your bugtracking... tied to github. Same for gitlab.
I agree because their UI is more catered toward bugtracking, that's it.
@emsenn Mostly, Discourse is bad.
@gdorn Well, as someone who's never heard of Discourse before your OP, it definitely sounded like you were arguing for one bespoke (albeit sometimes FOSS) bugtracking system over another, because you think the latter isn't bespoke.
For what it's worth, @sir recently wrote a great bit of info about using Git and email, and I'm working on keeping editorial information in-repo (by way of literate programming), which'll /actually/ be in-repo bugtracking, unlike Github/lab.
@gdorn I meant to say former not latter, whoops.
I posted while angry about the dependency hell I'm dealing with. On top of needing to use yet another system (searching both because the transition was recent), the new system likes to add notification flair to the browser tab to grab my attention for things that aren't even slightly related to the issue I'm reporting.
Like if I emailed a mailing list to report a bug that ate my morning and the listserv autoreplied with four congratulations and informed me I was level 2 now.
@gdorn Oh man I have a former boss who would LOVE Discourse, I can tell! He's a /monster/. (Gonna untag Drew I just wanted to bring up his "git email" site which is so well executed imo)
> git push
Enumerating objects: 5, done.
Counting objects: 100% (5/5), done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done.
Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 385 bytes | 385.00 KiB/s, done.
Total 3 (delta 2), reused 0 (delta 0)
remote: You have earned 5 XP!
remote: Congratulations, you have leveled up! You are now level 7.
@devilish Y'know I'm now thinking about it and I wonder if "engagement" isn't a term like "accessibility," where it often is just used to justify whatever decision was going to be made anyway. (like moving from IRC because it's "inaccessible," but without ever explaining WHO it's inaccesible for or why.)
@Wolf480pl I'm thinking more generic like a latin term, the way you can just say "ad hominem" if someone calls you an idiot in debate.
If someone says "but my engagement," you can just say like, "verbum absque," or something, to indicate "that term doesn't have a widely-agreed-upon-enough definition and so to use it in this conversation, you need to say what it means to you, or I'll call your argument illogical by way of this fallacy I've just made up."
@emsenn @devilish @gdorn @sir
This reminds me of what I called "definition trapping" a while ago, which is a special case of kafka-trapping, in which the attacker:
1. arbitrarliy redefines a well-established term without telling you
2. uses that term
3. expects you to assume the well-established definition
4. blames you for not knowing his new definition and assuming the old definition was meant
It's not the same as using a meaningless word, but it's kinda similar.
social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.
Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here