Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Removed reference to GitHub Issues and Discussions#9660

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Merged
browniebroke merged 2 commits intoencode:masterfrommbeijen:no-discussions
Mar 31, 2025

Conversation

mbeijen
Copy link
Contributor

ulgens, jtrobles-cdd, hyperstown, andyzickler, sevdog, and baseplate-admin reacted with thumbs down emoji
@ulgens
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that issues and discussions are deactivated for good, this is more of a temporary thing until the project gains its momentum back. Removing the references seems not ideal.

@iTrooz
Copy link

Wish we could at least see the old issues/discussions. So much knowledge lost

jtrobles-cdd, paolodina, marty0678, hyperstown, DmytroLitvinov, JaeHyuckSa, joshorr, joshuatz, beaugunderson, andy-lang, and 6 more reacted with thumbs up emojiulgens, paolodina, marty0678, hyperstown, JaeHyuckSa, andyzickler, joshorr, joshuatz, cliff688, and pktiuk reacted with heart emoji

@auvipy
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure why discussion is deactivated!

tomchristie
tomchristie previously approved these changesMar 3, 2025
Copy link
Member

@tomchristietomchristie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Thank you@mbeijen, much appreciated.

Given that they are not currently activated it seems(?) reasonable enough to get the docs updated.

This pull request will remain in the history, and we can revert if/when appropriate at a later date.

@tomchristie
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure why discussion is deactivated!

Some reasons here...

  • I feel that the project's discussion working space doesn't present the kind of environment I'd like to be working in.
  • Much of the discussion and issue space isn't being properly directed at the moment and feels to me like its creating a distraction/drag on attention, rather than being genuinely valuable.

An optionmight be to make them public again, but put interaction limits on the repository to prevent ongoing churn. That would resolve the second part of my concerns but doesn't address helping clean up the initial part.

@hyperstown
Copy link

@tomchristie would it be possible to make issues and discussions read only for now? I believe those had a lot of useful information that currently is not accessible.

Also does that also mean that project currently doesn't accept any new features? Only bug/security fixes?

ThomasRubini, ulgens, q0w, DmytroLitvinov, JaeHyuckSa, aashayamballi, sevdog, MaertHaekkinen, and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emoji

@sethrh
Copy link

My team just started using DRF, and we're two months in on a major project. It's really unsettling to see a huge source of information about how real people use the framework (bug reports) just disappear.

As a developer, particularly one new to the framework, I rely on issue lists to see if problems I'm running into are correct or incorrect behavior, known issues, if other people have encountered them, if I'm doing it wrong, etc.

I'm not sure what the reasons are for turning off issues here on GitHub, but if there's some problem, please consider turning the issues back on while the problem is resolved.

beaugunderson, sevdog, and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emojiulgens, JaeHyuckSa, joshorr, beaugunderson, MaertHaekkinen, and pktiuk reacted with heart emoji

@tomchristie
Copy link
Member

Yes, tho...

The issue here is that there a problematic environment across the entire GitHub ecosystem that's become normalised.

Anonymous contributors demanding attention in ways that both intentionally and unintentionally end up as a DDOS on project maintainers.

I'm putting a hard limit on this at the moment to reset expectations.

sethrh, hyperstown, uskudnik, FlipperPA, TonyRoussel, and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emoji

@tomchristie
Copy link
Member

would it be possible to make issues and discussions read only for now?

I have been considering this yes. GitHub doesn't really have controls to allow that, tho it does have a work around in the form of interaction limits.

hyperstown, FlipperPA, and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emoji

@encodeencode deleted a comment fromiTroozMar 6, 2025
@aliraad79
Copy link

Hi, there is also a reference to#5181 inthis link you should consider deleting this too

@mbeijen
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Hi, there is also a reference to#5181 inthis link you should consider deleting this too

Thanks, I've updated my PR.

Unfortunately, my updating the PR removed the approval by@tomchristie and also it's not merged yet. I'm sorry for the extra work ;-(

aliraad79 reacted with thumbs up emoji

@auvipy
Copy link
Member

can we make them collaborators only or read only if possible?

ulgens, aashayamballi, JaeHyuckSa, thejoeejoee, q0w, and mcanu reacted with heart emoji

@joshorr
Copy link

joshorr commentedMar 18, 2025
edited
Loading

I'm not sure why discussion is deactivated!

Some reasons here...

  • I feel that the project's discussion working space doesn't present the kind of environment I'd like to be working in.
  • Much of the discussion and issue space isn't being properly directed at the moment and feels to me like its creating a distraction/drag on attention, rather than being genuinely valuable.

An optionmight be to make them public again, but put interaction limits on the repository to prevent ongoing churn. That would resolve the second part of my concerns but doesn't address helping clean up the initial part.

@tomchristie Sorry for the interruption, but I had a thought on this subject that might help.

It sounds like you can limit the interaction with them, and that resolves your second concern.

As for your first concern: If there is no longer any new issues or interactions happening in them, then it means you would have no reason or need to work/examine them any longer. I am thinking that it may resolve your first concern, as you would have no reason to be working in/on the issues since nothing new could be posted in them?

I also remember seeing something on this project recently (not sure if it was a discussion/issue or somewhere else, can't seem to find it anymore) that talked about how this project was in a mature state and generally only changes that helped adapt the DRF to changes in the last Django versions would be the ones generally being accepted/merged in.

It seems like making the discussions public but read-only/non-interactive would be in that same general spirit, ie: keeping things how they are, not adding new features, and only adapting to changes in the framework's dependencies.

Background:

Some of the issue had generally useful information in them. I am thinking making it visible in some way would be a greater benefit than hiding them.

Yes, it does hide the non-useful discussion, but the cost is hiding all of the genuinely useful ones as well. I remember a number of very useful discussions that helped me use this framework over the years. I would love to see them visible again so I can continue to reference them.

shuuji3, sevdog, lym, and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emoji

@browniebroke
Copy link
Member

To make issues ready-only I searched and found this hacky solution:https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/64600#discussioncomment-8713177.

I createda repo to test it: it prevents creation of new issues and doesn't prevent commenting on the ones which are already open, but we could lock all existing ones. I don't think it's easy to do in bulk via the UI, but we could script that with thegh command line/their API...

shuuji3 and pktiuk reacted with thumbs up emoji

@shuuji3
Copy link
Contributor

shuuji3 commentedMar 28, 2025
edited
Loading

Hi, GitHub's interactions limit feature might be helpful here, though it does not have so much granular control. It allows you to temporarily restrict contributions to a specific group, still allowing others to access to the precious knowledge base. I think this feature was created for a situation like this. I hope this helps for healthy open source maintenance 🙂

Temporary interaction limit

@browniebroke
Copy link
Member

Going to merge this as is as it's reflecting the current state of the project 👍🏻 Thanks everyone

tomchristie reacted with thumbs up emojishuuji3 reacted with heart emoji

@browniebrokebrowniebroke merged commitffadde9 intoencode:masterMar 31, 2025
8 checks passed
@browniebrokebrowniebroke added this to the3.16 milestoneApr 8, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@browniebrokebrowniebrokebrowniebroke approved these changes

@tomchristietomchristietomchristie left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.16
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

11 participants
@mbeijen@ulgens@iTrooz@auvipy@tomchristie@hyperstown@sethrh@aliraad79@joshorr@browniebroke@shuuji3

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp