<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.03.21 um 09:49 schrieb Magnus
Melin:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:78844839-6329-04be-53ee-86bd318e4ede@iki.fi">maildev was
never a forum for technical *questions*.<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>maildev was supposed to be the place where TB core developers
gather to make project-wide <i>development</i> decisions.</p>
<p>tb-planning is a fairly noisy place. It discusses all kinds of
topics. Developers need a far more focused place, which is focused
only on development questions. The fact that maildev is low
traffic is not a problem, but a feature. Good developers are busy.
They need very high signal to noise ratio, and focus on subjects
that matter to them. That's why tb-planning is completely
unsuited.</p>
<p>Bugs are unsuitable, as others have already pointed out, because
it's impossible to subscribe to all of Bugzilla. It may be
possible for you as the module owner and full time staff, but not
for others. The problem with "Let's use Bugzilla for that" is
effectively excluding the community, because they simply don't
know that a certain bug exists at all. It's basically hiding in
the forest, even if the forest is theoretically open for all.
Bugzilla is good for discussing bugs, and so-so for reviewing
patches, but completely unsuitable for discussion. Also because it
lacks threading. I cannot read it with Thunderbird. Etc.pp.<br>
</p>
<p>We need a venue were we can discuss high-level, far-reaching
developer questions, that reach beyond the scope of a particilar
developer or feature or bug, but concern larger parts of the code
base, have large impact, or affect all developers. maildev has
been used like that, it was low traffic, high signal (for core
devs), and that's good.<br>
</p>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>