Fediverse Futures
Social Media Reimagined
This is a companion to Fediverse Futures on Social Coding to elaborate the Fediverse from high-level, non-technical perspectives, brainstorming our visions and dreams.
We need a more holistic approach to fedi development and evolution. We need product designers, graphics artists, UX / UI / Interaction designers, futurists and visionaries to join the dev folks. Everyone is encouraged to join here and enrich our views on what Fediverse can be with diverse and different viewpoints, and to stimulate brainstorming, creativity, thinking out-of-the-box and crazy, wild ideas.
Some guidelines
- Choose a descriptive title that speaks for itself.
- Be substantive in your comments and stay on-topic.
- Treat others as you want to be treated, respectful.
- Don't be overly critical, we are just brainstorming.
Please read the Social Coding Community Participation Guidelines for more information.
Our fedi hashtags
#Peopleverse #FediverseFutures #Web0 #SocialNetworkingReimagined #UnitedInDiversity #Fedivolution2022 #SocialCoding #ActivityPub
view the rest of the comments
Hmm to be honest I have not used Github discussions much, but it seems to make sense to separate issue tracking from general development discussions.
Yeah, I can imagine people do not like the separation. But I also agree it makes sense. If you some of the discussions on issues, esp. when dealing with larger chunks of functionality or controversial features. These issues remain open, and hence 'on the backlog' eternally. And that may affect the workflow (or even how people perceive the project, e.g. such as those with thousands of open issues). Issues and Discussions have different commenting UI also, where the latter is threaded.
How? Isn't general development discussion actually an issue? If a discussion comes to a point and gets implemented, it is essentially an issue,...
An issues is usually a bug report or similar, not a feature discussion etc. Depending on the outcome of the discussion you then create an issue or a PR/feature branch.
Usually? And when it is not?
See, I don't see any reasons why a feature discussion shouldn't be an issue. "Issue" is just a fancy name for "Discussion", isn't it? So basically, these are all some kind of linear or tree-style discussion of some specific topic. There's nothing more to it, is there?
So I don't see why they should be seperate at all. Differentiation can be done via tags, labels, ... or whatever you'd like to call it. That's there already of course.
You don't seem to be a developer :)
Issues are supposed to be like tickets. They come from issue tracking systems. They have a clearly defined life cycle of opening and closing them.
If you mix them with general discussions your entire project cycle management system breaks as you can't have clear milestones etc. with forever open "issues" that are not issues but discussions.
I have been a developer for over 10 years now.
I don't see why an issue must be assigned to a milestone, so I don't see how an issue can break any lifecycle.
How an issue is used in a development project is "it depends". Whatever the chosen and preferred method of the maintainers is. If you really want a concise backlog with concrete stuff, and no "pie in the sky" musings on future major extensions, then Discussion section can be very handy. If you don't use discussions, you may end in a situation where off-topic'ish issues sit in the backlog like forever, and pile up.
@musicmatze @poVoq
The Github Discusions is relatively new feature they added. I did not see many projects yet that are very actively using it.