Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?

[Katherine Cox-Buday]

On 8/25/23 3:57 AM, Attila Lendvai wrote:

> > Otherwise I do not get your point: I keep untreated messages with the latest
> > patch version in my Guix inbox, and file away the others in a separate mbox.
> > So things are not flat, but have two levels: "to be treated" or "done".
>
>
> my point is that in a PR based model/workflow things like this is done by a 
> program. and each brain cycle you spend on maintaining the sanity of your local 
> inbox, is not spent on hacking, and the results of your effort is not even 
> mirrored into the inbox of the other contributors.

I was reflecting on what it is about the email-based workflow that I 
find difficult, and I think you've highlighted one thing:

With a PR based workflow, there is a program essentially figuring out 
the equivalent of the `git send-email` flags and doing the submission 
for me. I generally go to the site for a repo's main branch, get 
prompted about my recent branch, click a button, and it's submitted.

And you've also highlighted the core of my original message: it's 
frustrating to spend effort on the meta of changing code instead of 
changing code. There will always be ancillary effort, but it can be 
greatly reduced.

> this seems like a small thing, but multiply this with every message, and every 
> potential contributor and maintainer... and then consider its cumulative effect 
> on the emergent order that we call the Guix community.

A thousand times this.

> meta:
>
> the reason i'm contributing to this discussion is not that i'm proposing to 
> move to some specific other platform right now. it's rather to nudge the 
> consensus away from the conclusion that the email based workflow is good and is 
> worth sticking with.
>
> once/if we get closer that consensus, only then should the discussion move on 
> to collect our requirements and evaluate the free sw solutions that are 
> available today. which again could be organized much better in a wiki than in 
> email threads, but that's yet another topic...

I just want to call out that my original message was not strictly about 
the email based workflow. I want reduction of cognitive overhead to be 
an ongoing goal, whatever that comes to mean.

--
Katherine