Say you want to contribute to a project and find out the only way to do so is by discussing the issue on IRC or the mailing list, then submitting the patch per email.
I spent a lot of time and energy doing that years ago and don’t want to do it anymore. Mailing lists suck because you’re subscribed to a billion things you don’t want to hear about. IRC…honestly…the world has just moved past it.
I’m sad the world moved past IRC. It was always chock full of tech geniuses and underground nerd shit. The normies can have discord
I’m still amazed that people consider proprietary app Discord the successor to IRC
I’m surprised discord is so commonly used with such a horribly unintuitive UX. I can’t recall all my problems with it, but I remember absolutely hating using it at first, as a person with early adopter tendencies.
This is my sentiment too and I asked the question because I was surprised that some new projects were actually being started with exactly these 2 dinosaurs. It felt offputting - as if they were trying to keep people away.
Lemmy doesn’t support questionnaires, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of those who like those 2 technologies were 40+, maybe even 50+.
it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of those who like those 2 technologies were 40+, maybe even 50+.
I don’t think it should surprise anyone if people with more experience and skills are more comfortable with simple tools than the rest of us. They’ve had more time to find good workflows for those tools, after all.
It might be more interesting to ask why people prefer any one comms method over another. For example, do they like irc/email because they’re old dogs who can’t learn new tricks, or because those are open systems that can’t be taken over by some greedy corporation?
more comfortable with simple tools than the rest of us
That really depends on your definition of “simple”. Swimming across a river is simple, but hard. All you need is your body. Using a boat is easy, but complicated (you need to know how to drive a boat). So yeah, it’s “simple” but it’s not easy, IMO.
Agree with many of the other comments here saying that they’d be very wary of such a project based on what these choices say about the project’s maintainers. Something else is that while I have real affection for email and particularly IRC based on past experience, I don’t think these two are without problems. Email is so asynchronous that many folks feel obligated to treat writing messages to a list more formally. This is not totally misguided since everyone subscribed gets this message delivered to them. IRC, on the other hand, is so synchronous that you should reasonably worry if anyone will be there to talk with, and about whether or not there are searchable archives.
Something (like GitHub) that can be quick but is also perfectly serviceable for asynchronous communication really does have advantages, imho.
Mailing lists intimidate me but I haven’t ever tried to communicate by one. IRC is probably fine.
I’ll be honest though, I’m not going to submit a patch to a mailing list unless there are pretty clear and easy instructions. Forking a project and opening a pull request on whatever forge (like GitHub, GitLab, and others) is easy. I probably do it once every three months or so when I find a bug I know I can fix. Mailing lists are just enough trouble (with my current level of understanding) that I’m probably not going to do it.
I’ll give an example. I found a bug in the JDK that was fixed in 17 but not in 11 and I was trying to figure out how to report it or backport it myself. It was crazy the amount of hoops I needed to jump through and I gave up. I’m not saying the project should be different so it fits my needs or anything, I’m just using this as an example of hurdles discouraging me from contributing. I think the vast majority of devs are probably at the same place and don’t want to fool with mailing lists. (I’m not saying projects should stop using them.)
To anyone interested, there is a comprehensive tutorial about how to use Git with email to contribute to projects like these.
One issue with IRC is that there’s no archiving by default. That means discussions and context for decisions are lost. This can be fixed, though. But the default setup for social chat isn’t optimal for project planning.
These technologies, although archaic, clumsy and insecure, are not a fatal problem - these are still open and widely accessible anyway.
However, this case may indicate that the projects author is an autocratic hermit type, locked in a bubble with his ancient tech and not really welcoming outside contributors and bug reports, so these IRC and maillists come with worse things such as CVS, C89 code, build system handwritten in shell which only works on author’s machine, and complete unwillingness to discuss, fix, modernize and make the software more portable, so not only contribution attempt would be a waste of time, but simply using such project could pose risks.
Of course that’s not necessarily the case and it may be just good old IRC and maillists, and that should not be the problem for most people. For me personally though, for I contribute to hundreds of F/OSS projects, this is a show stopper, as I absolutely want to minimize routine tasks. One-two
git/ghcommands is what I’m used to, while installing extra software, going through registrations, copypasting patches, monitoring additional sites for feedback does not work. In the best case I would fire-and-forget, so if someone on some god forgotten self-hosted gitlab asks to fix a thing in my PR I will never see it. Or more likely, I would put such contributions into my contribution queue with lowest priority, and since the queue of what I want to improve is always growing and never shrinking, it effectively cancels them.And I could add that you don’t really need realtime communication channels to contribute - technical stuff may and should be discussed in async mode as in issue/PR comments (or email reply thread in the worst case), where unrelated discussions don’t happen in parallel, message size is not limited, history is preserved, nobody is in rush to reply, you don’t need to actively wait for reply and cannot miss it because you’ve disconnected, someone forgot to tag you or it was just list in the chat.
Summarizing, the project should be on [the most popular VCS hosting at the moment], which is currently GitHub, any other choice makes it much less accessible and welcoming. For chat use whatever you want, for it’s not related to contributions. If you think otherwise, at least stick to open protocols.
These technologies, although archaic, clumsy and insecure
Like cars? Or phones? Those are also archaic, clumsy and insecure technologies.
It’s the year 2023. I find it baffling that you think it’s OK to marginize and insult people like that just because they choose to spend their mostly free time communicating on a medium that you don’t agree with.
OP asked for opinions, and that was an opinion.
You are right a project author can do as they please, but so can a project contributor. Both spend their mostly free time on that project, so it should be comfortable for both to do so.
There is no need to automatically agree. We can have different styles and disagree, in which case people might prefer to contribute to some other project instead, or work with other contributors instead.
Stating that using these methods of organizing a project is indicative of “the projects author is an autocratic hermit type, locked in a bubble with his ancient tech and not really welcoming outside contributors and bug reports” is not an opinion, it’s nonsense and its insulting.
Right, I get now what you mean. In defense of the other person, they said this may be the case. Which implies that it also may not be the case. It’s a worry spoken out, maybe without thinking too much about how to word it in a way which does not come across as insulting.
I would frown at this in a direct conversation, but not so much in an indirect, general talk about opinions. In the current setting, I appreciated the opinion as open and direct. I don’t think anyone’s feelings have been hurt here, unless someone actively wants to feel offended.
deleted by creator
I totally agree longterm projects are better off using github or email.
Here is the crux for lively discussions using discord/IRC comes more natural. But whilst it facilitates easier flowing communication it fails to preserve it.
I think it’s super based. All these clowns talking about open source while using Discord and GitHub (yes, that’s me included). You want to submit a bug report to Git itself? Well, you gotta send a bug report to the mailing list. Then some guy will be like “oh shit can you fix it also?” and I’m like “haha no” so the dude submits a fix himselg within 4 hours, and obtains the raging hard boner of internet developer clout
Great system, pgp keys are actually useful. And everyone knows you have to be at least an 8/10 in handsomeness to be running an IRC server. Also, Matrix is trash, I’m serious, modern IRC is cool
What do you dislike about Matrix?
Oh it’s just an over complicated pile of low quality stuff. Still substantially behind XMPP, which was a fine solution. Somehow still behind IRCv3 in terms of raw usability and apps too. IRCv3 is a new spec that made a lot of improvements
I investigated all three in depth and decided IRCv3 is what I want to use for my server / apps. I even run a public web client that acts like Discord. IRC has the bigger communities still
If you really care about encryption, maybe there’s a reason you’d do something different, but I just want private chat servers with good UX
I agree with those saying mailing lists are intimidating. I don’t know if others are using dedicated tools or something but I find web based mailing list UIs just incomprehensibly bad and difficult to navigate.
Most web-based mailing list UIs are honestly incredibly bad, but you don’t need to use them, you can choose any email client you want.
The problem with mailing lists is that no mailing list provider ever supports “subscribe to this message tree”.
As a result, either you get constant spam, or you don’t get half the replies.
I sort messages from mailing lists into different mail folders, and my client (Gnus) supports a threaded view of messages (and I can press ‘k’ on a message to mark the entire thread as read), so this isn’t a big issue for me.
If mailing lists had a view like reddit / lemmy / slashdot / hackernews, I might be more willing to use them, but that wouldn’t solve contributions for me. I have no idea how to format emails to comment on code and then follow ensuing discussions. And how would CI work?
Email how to: https://useplaintext.email
Small change:
git diff origin master > mycontribution.patchand paste it into email body.Big change: same as small, but add as attachment.
Subscribe to coreutils mailing list - low enough volume to not get overwhelmed and established enough to get a feel of the culture.
If you feel like learning more about it, there is a great tutorial available:
Personally I am comfortable with that as long as there is a public git repo. An issue tracker is the one thing I’d miss the most. I think how well this goes down will greatly depend on the project’s target audience.
notmuch is a project that I follow closely and very occasionally contribute to that works this way.Both are heavy targets of spamming and take considerable effort to maintain
True for everything on the open internet though.
Case and point: https://social.anoxinon.de/@Codeberg/111080409541766357
IRC and email work fine for me. Leagues better than having it locked away behind Discord’s policies and whims.
An issue/patch tracker (and maybe a wiki) would be nice, but I don’t feel they’re necessary. The linux kernel manages without them, after all.
I like IRC and still use it daily to keep up with other hobbyists. Then again, vintage computers are my main hobby horse and of course those circles are gonna lean towards platforms that remain usable on a VIC-20.
I’m too
oldyoung to deal with this. Probably wouldn’t contributeSame. Presented with those options, I just don’t contribute 🤷
I never really used IRC, but in my experience contributing to projects which use mailing lists is very easy - you just send a mail with some code.
Of course you could use git-send-email, and you could create diffs and patches, but I actually think for a new contributor the mailing list workflow is the simplest since it doesn’t actually require knowledge of the various tools experienced developers use.
I write this from personal experience BTW - the first projects I contributed to used mailing lists, which allowed me to contribute even as a self taught programmer who had no experience with any VCS yet.
Do you find mailing lists easier to use than pull requests / merge requests? And how do you find following a discussion in a mailing list?
For newer/inexperienced users mailing lists are definitely easier. Everyone can send an email.
From a contributor point of view, mailing lists are definitely easier than pull/merge requests - you just send a patch which you can create in any way you want to an email address.
Following a discussion is easy - it’s just a list of messages. In fact, it is easier for me since I use Gnus as my email client, which gives me a threaded view of discussions on the list.
Yes and it depends to both questions.
I participate in projects being developed on Github that have 5k+ open pull requests and the same amount of issues. At that volume of communication, the Github workflow of “clicking through stuff” is way inferior to an efficient email workflow. Essentially, your workflow turns into email anyways because its the only sane way to consume based on push, and yes, I know, you can reply to Github using email, but its not nearly as good as something made for email.
So, in my opinion, email is simpler to use that pull request. It is not easiser because it is not close to what people are used to.
At that volume of communication, the Github workflow of “clicking through stuff” is way inferior to an efficient email workflow. Essentially, your workflow turns into email anyways because its the only sane way to consume based on push (…)
I don’t agree. Any conversation on pull requests happens through issues/tickets, which already aggregate all related events and are trivially referenced through their permanent links, including through the Git repo’s history.
