From: Rob Purchase <rob.purchase_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:06:05 +0100

On 15/06/2010 20:16, Dominik Riebeling wrote:
>
> I agree, but from my perspective the main problem is that too much
> discussion happens in IRC and almost none on the ML. It's much easier
> to follow ML discussions than IRC if you don't have the time to be
> active on IRC all day: on a ML I have subject lines that give me an
> easy way to filter messages, and if my client isn't totally broken I
> can group threads so they aren't interleaved with other things (which
> does happen all the time on IRC). Discussions on the ML are also
> slower due to the nature of the medium. Which is a good thing
> especially for debatable stuff IMO, as it also gives people who aren't
> around at the time of the initial discussion the opportunity to take
> part before the discussion is over. Taking part on a IRC discussion
> that happened 12h ago is almost impossible. Also, reading all IRC logs
> is quite time consuming, and I'm rather sure that several developers
> (and I definitely can count myself in here) simply don't find the time
> to read all the IRC conversations.
>
I completely agree. I rarely have time to catch up with the IRC logs
(although I do try), whereas dev ML posts are much easier to keep track
of. Plus, they get delivered to me personally without the need for me to
think to check the logs/forums/news/blog/whatever.

This last point is key, I think. If a big change like a compiler change
is announced, it should be pushed out to all devs, and the easiest way
to do this is via email.

Rob.
Received on 2010-06-16