Re: issue tracker?

[James R Miller]

> This idea that the tools used by a potential contributor are inadequate
> misses the point. If the intention is to keep a project going, or better
> yet increase the number of contributors, tools have to be used that will
> be convenient and familiar to those thinking about contributing.
> 
> For better or worse, the workflows embodied by Github and Gitlab are
> familiar to the current generation of potential contributors upon which
> sustaining a project will depend.
> 
> Holding up the 'Linux uses email for development and thus any project
> doing similar is right' fails to recognize the peculiar nature of the
> Linux kernel (and its developers) and neglects the thousands of projects
> that have increased their visibility and participation by using tools
> such as Github. I agree that Github/Gitlab may not be the best choice
> owing to their stance or implementation related to software freedom, but
> an honest discussion of alternatives seems prudent.

This is the point I am trying to (un-eloquently) make. I'm seeing a bunch of 
younger coders interested in emacs (mostly spacemacs and doom); but, 
they get frustrated with the ancient (to them) dev practices.  I'm not 
advocating any rash decisions; simply, whether the project would benefit
from incorporating some sort of simple issue tracker, so that new 
contributors could readily see open tasks / issues / submit bug reports.

My biggest issue with a ML only approach is that it's not easy to see what's 
an open issue unless you spend a long time searching and reading the ML. 
And I feel that that time could be better spent learning the code base
instead of reading the ML. 

-- 
 James Miller
address@hidden