Re: New Package for NonGNU-ELPA: clojure-ts-mode

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 27/08/2023 14:10, João Távora wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:51 AM Dmitry Gutov<dmitry@gutov.dev>  wrote:
> > On 27/08/2023 09:26, João Távora wrote:
> > > In my personal case I find no significant difference in working with
> > > either model.  I find certain GitHub discussions and issue threads
> > > just as pleasant or toxic as the things I find here.  I find email
> > > reviews of patches no more complicated than those sophisticated
> > > boxes.  Trivial patches to typos and stuff are indeed a little
> > > harder to apply here compared with the the big green button.  But
> > > then trivial patches aren't the things moving a project
> > > forward anyway.
> > Have you noticed any difference in the amount of bug reports here vs
> > Github? Any difference in the volume of user participation: further
> > comments, follow-ups, etc?
> I still keep the GitHub repo open for those, though it's not the code
> upstream anymore.  Some discussions still happen there (and I ask to move
> them here if I find them particularly relevant).  A hybrid solution much
> like TRAMP and Gnus and other projects.  I'd say I notice an increase
> in_total_  participation if I add the Emacs bug tracker + emacs-devel +
> that, but one would have to measure.  The ratio seems to be about
> two GitHub posts for every Emacs tracker post.

Naturally the sum of the two will be higher, but you *are* keeping the 
GitHub tracker alive, and people still use it 2x as often as Debbugs, 
even though the README asks them to use the latter. Even though that 
last part by itself necessarily increases the visibility of Debbugs with 
this additional advertisement. And despite all the active contributors 
having moved to Debbugs, again, by your request.

This is the point I was making.

As a thought experiment, I invite the reader to imagine how much fewer 
Eglot activity on Debbugs we'd be getting without that GitHub page at all.

> These things are very seasonal though, and usually correlate with
> announcement of new features, new versions of the LSP standard, etc.
> And of course they correlate heavily with the time that_I_  have to
> devote to the project.  If I am more active, so are Eglot's users.

Naturally.

> A point worth mentioning is that the quality of bug reports (and
> feature requests and support requests) is generally slightly higher
> in the Emacs bug tracker, as I think people feel the responsibility
> of writing something structured and consistent instead of just a screenshot
> and a "look it doesn't work".  They write it usually under their own name
> and email address (as opposed to a somewhat anonymous alias).  I think this
> is a good thing.

That's the same "50 squats" principle I mentioned previously.

> So I don't know how to answer your question, given this hybrid model.
> I think if I had just shut down the GitHub, we'd see more stuff pop up in
> Emacs tracker, ...

Interesting theory. I half-wish we could try it someday.

My own experience is that the projects inside the core, which were never 
on Github, get incomparably less feedback. Much fewer bug reports, 
questions, suggestions, and so on.

project.el (for example) is most of the time treated like a code drop 
which people either use, or code around, or revert to Projectile.

Same for Xref, except without the third option.

> Then again, as
> Po observes, some users likely find the GitHub registration a barrier to
> participation, too.

Those could just be using Debbugs, no?