On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 20:34 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote: > On 7/20/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/20/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/20/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is it as important for contributors? If I understand it correctly, > > > > the idea of this change (a bunch of projects seem to be moving this > > > > way) is that the developers see exactly what they used to see and the > > > > contributors get a less spammy list and thus get more involved. > > > > > > > Commit diffs are not spam, IMO, nor are issue reports / comments. > > This is core to what is happening on a project. > > > I agree with Phil. And I don't buy that more people would get involved if > they didn't see the commit messages. How can they be properly involved if > they're not watching what's happening to the code and the issues?
I'm also -0 on splitting the list into dev/commit (though open to persuasion). As noted, JIRA comments are as valid as emails for discussing an issue. And I think any contributor to a project (someone who is submitting patches) needs to keep an eye on patches even if not "a committer", to see if their area of interest is being modified and how. Allowing people to subscribe to (mail+jira+commit) for a specific commons component seems to be to me what casual contributors would really need, but we have no easy way to do that without causing major damage to the whole commons community. > > As far as the arguments about getting new contributors in, I would > > like to hear from them. That's an excellent idea.. Brett, what's the feedback on the split of the Maven list? Why do you think it was a good idea? Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
