[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[Renato Golin via cfe-dev]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 18:55, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:

> I read the original proposal in this thread as a move. The llvm-dev@
> mailing-list would not exist anymore.
>

Right, but that still doesn't fix the problem that many people, some of
them long term contributors, may choose not to participate at all if that
happens.

It would just be another type of fragmentation.

Maybe, I'm not an expert. I just observe that these "decades" of experience
> haven't panned out to a good experience for our needs. It may be just a
> matter of setting up these features though, I'd be happy to read about this
> if you have pointers.
>

I have no idea how mailman works but I did use well setup mailmain
instances that had hundreds of mailing lists, cross posts, sub-lists and so
on, as early as as late 90s and as late as 2016.

The few times I tried to set that up myself I had nightmares for weeks, so
not going to even search for that on the net. :)

I've seen enough back and forth in all the threads on this subject to
>> realise the "impedance mismatch" is more of a generational thing (people
>> who dig new tooling vs. people who find it hard to change their ways), than
>> it is a technical thing.
>>
>
> No, not here: I was mentioning an impedance mismatch between what you can
> model with the tool and the actual reality of what needs to be modeled.
> To clarify: you can talk about impedance mismatch on a personal level
> between how a tool works and your preference, but that's different from my
> point here.
>

Ack.

But what we want to model is highly driven by the tools we know how to use,
so it's no surprise that people who use tools A think it does a better job
at feature x, just because that's what it has. Tool B doesn't even know
what x means, so how people that use it can understand?

That was my point about preference, not that "some people like A others
like B", but that "people who use x with A can't see how B can work if it
doesn't provide x (but does provide y)".

That's what I've seen in this thread: people talking past each other
because they're talking about similar concepts but implemented in different
ways.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20210629/c1afde31/attachment.html>