Re: How are the defaults chosen?

[Theodor Thornhill]

> Do you have more context? I don't know what this is.

Sure - I'll quote some stuff from earlier.  The discussion is around how
to modernize the process around contributing to emacs.  It seems like
some of the arguments made here are the same you seem to want to tackle
with SourceHut. I am sure you are not aware, but different forges have
been evaluated:
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

The whole discussion that prompted me to ping you starts here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2020-09/msg00386.html

See some selected quotes below:

Stefan Kangas mentions: 
> AFAIK, we are looking for volunteers to help with finding a satisfactory
> alternative to debbugs.  The biggest challenge seems to be to
> transparently support both a web based and an email based
> workflow.  Existing solutions usually do either one or the other well,
> but not both.  There was a thread here about this in the last year.


Later, sourcehut is mentioned:

>> Göktuğ Kayaalp <self@gkayaalp.com> writes:
>> Having zero expertise I’d refrain from volunteering but the software of
>> Sourcehut <https://sr.ht> could maybe of use?
>
> SourceHut is still in an early development stage, but seems like a good
> implementation of the now popular GitHub/Gitlab development workflow on
> top of mailing lists. It may definitely lower the barrier to contribute
> code to Emacs, or to report a problem.

And this is where I though you could chime in a bit more, rather than us
just having opinions :)

> Stefan Kangas writes
> AFAIU, SourceHut has the explicit goal of enabling email based
> workflows, which does sound in line with our needs.  But it is still
> explicitly in alpha.


All the best,
Theodor Thornhill