[petsc-dev] Prediscusion of appropriate communication tool for discussion of PETSc 4 aka the Grand Refactorization

[Patrick Sanan]

The Gitlab wiki (on whichever repo) might also be a good complement to
whichever thread-based option is used.

<jed at jedbrown.org> schrieb am Fr. 19. Juni 2020 um 20:39:

> I'd expect we'd have a handful of issues with a common label. Easy to
> customize notifications. I don't see the point of a special repository
> except that it becomes less discoverable.
>
> On Jun 19, 2020 12:25, Hapla Vaclav <vaclav.hapla at erdw.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> Why not have a separate project within the same group
> https://gitlab.com/petsc? That would allow separate notification
> settings, for instance. Or the GitLab's Snippets feature mentioned by Jacob
> - I can imagine they might be confusing within the current repo if they
> would refer to a future API.
>
> That new repo can be kept forever for reference, if preferred. I don't see
> why it couldn't be referred to later.
>
> Anyway, Epics would be cool even for the current development.
>
> Vaclav
>
> On 19 Jun 2020, at 20:14, jed at jedbrown.org wrote:
>
> GitLab has Epics for managing related issues (we'd have to request
> community project status to activate it). I don't know if that feature
> helps facilitate what you envision. If using present features, I would have
> one outline issue and an issue for each major component. I'd rather not
> create a new repository. The institutional knowledge in the discussion can
> be useful to refer to later.
>
> On Jun 19, 2020 12:03, Barry Smith <bsmith at petsc.dev> wrote:
>
>
>   We could create a new empty repository just to use the issue tracker,
> then we could have the discussion in multiple issues. (having links to
> PETSc code etc would then require full paths).
>
>   Each design topic, of which there will be dozens, would get its own
> issue and new topics are trivial added. People can watch the topics they
> care about. Plus an issue for general discussion.
>
>   Barry
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Jacob Faibussowitsch <jacob.fai at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think a special GitLab issue (something akin #360 CI Tracker) would do
> the job quite nicely.
>
> I agree more with this. This also allows you to immediately see the list
> of linked MR’s and issues right in the conversation, as well as being able
> to link code snippets. One gripe however is that the issue becomes
> monolithic with multiple conversation threads (as you can see the CI error
> issue is a totally unstructured Smörgåsbord). To keep a more structured
> overview we should have multiple issues that are linked together.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jacob Faibussowitsch
> (Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch)
> Cell: (312) 694-3391
>
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Hapla Vaclav <vaclav.hapla at erdw.ethz.ch>
> wrote:
>
> I like Slack but it does NOT have the full history in the free plan - it's
> limited to 10k messages.
>
> I think a special GitLab issue (something akin #360 CI Tracker) would do
> the job quite nicely.
>
> Vaclav
>
> On 19 Jun 2020, at 06:48, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
>
> I would prefer this mailing list or GitLab issues because they are
>
> 1. genuinely open to external participants,
> 2. more async-friendly for those in different timezones and folks with
> young kids, and
> 3. searchable and externally linkable (e.g., from merge requests and
> issues)
>
> If we need synchronous breakouts, we could do so, but there should be a
> summary back for those who couldn't participate synchronously.
>
> Barry Smith <bsmith at petsc.dev> writes:
>
>  I'd like to start a discussion of PETSc 4.0 aka the Grand Refactorization
> but to have that discussion we need to discuss what tool to use for that
> discussion.
>
>  So this discussion is not about PETSc 4.0, please don't discuss it here.
>
>  What do people recommend to use for the discussion
>
>     * dedicated mailing list
>     * slack channel(s)
>     * zulip channel(s)
>     * something else?
>
> I'd like a single tool that anyone can join at any time, see the full
> history, can attach files, search, not cost more money the we are already
> paying, etc.
>
> I expect this discussion to take maybe a week and then the actual
> discussion to take on the order of two months.
>
>  Thanks
>
>    Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20200619/5245595a/attachment-0001.html>