[nanomsg] Re: New fork (was Re: Moving forward)

  • From: Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Garrett D'Amore" <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:41:31 +0100

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gitter’s got some things going for it that IRC doesn’t.  Better integration
> with git.  I’ve found that I really like its stateful behavior — with IRC I
> miss messages all the time — because I don’t run an IRC client 24x7.  But
> with Gitter, no messages lost — its always in my history.  Gitter also has
> better support for multimedia, so uploading pictures, graphs, even audio, is
> much easier.  Gitter is the “open-source git” equivalent to “slack”.
> Now that said, I definitely think splitting the community between IRC and
> Gitter is foolish.  I’ve not been paying close attention to IRC lately, but
> it seems like there isn’t a lot of activity there (on the nanomsg channel I
> mean).  Am I mistaken?  I’m happy to basically follow the wishes of the
> community here — but my personal vote all other things being equal is for
> gitter.  Folks will find it much more likely that I’ll *eventually* respond
> to IM’s on gitter than on IRC, because I go for long stretches at a time
> without logging into IRC.

Fair enough -- I don't have any experience with Gitter yet, but I've
been working with Slack, and it's been good to me. So if multiple
community members are convinced that moving to Gitter would be better,
I definitely won't prevent it from happening. We can always set the
IRC topic to point to Gitter.

> I’ve seen that.  We should probably converge out-of-band on understanding
> how that works, and what, if any, steps I should take to ensure it keeps
> working.

I think Martin Lucina runs the infra for that. Given the desired
coverage, I think keeping the buildbot master would probably a good
thing, and we could ask the community to join in with build slaves?
I'll assume we then use Travis CI as a first-line-of-defense kind of



Other related posts: