I absolutely don't disagree that moderated PRs would be great for the reasons you've mentioned and more, and for whatever that's worth, I "voted" for the move to github.
My point was that due to the really great facilities which github offers (hats off to them), I expect that the communication focus would shift "naturally" to github, since discussions over PRs are likely to happen there, as well as bug reports, features suggestions, etc, and because they really make it easy to participate and communicate over code. And so, people go where they feel comfortable.
And once the communication at github goes beyond some critical mass and becomes more meaningful than the mailing list, then the project has effectively moved to github.
As I mentioned, I have nothing against that, but I think the "core governance" should consider that it might/will happen.
And that poses two issues:
1. What happens with the relation between the mailing list and github (some solutions/approaches were offered already).
2. How to make sure the "core governance" still doesn't lose all the communication if github closes tomorrow (also sort of addressed).
Just things to think about. I'm all for the move to github in general and moderated PRs specifically.
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 8:05 PM, David Mertens <address@hidden> wrote:
avih, one more note:
The big problem is not how we handle our discussions on the mailing list, it's when a person does not respect the open source governance and pushes a bunch of unsolicited commits without any
discussion. This has happened many times over the last three or four years. Pull requests would let us manage those, mostly by preventing them when they do not fit the goals of the project (i.e. unwanted extensions to the compiler).
FWIW, I don't think this would stifle the current discussion of patches that occurs on the mailing list.