+1 for (2) [assuming jira here means a separate mailing list that gets
the full jira traffic]
My main reasoning is: not all issues are relevant to all people, so we
should let folks select which issues they want to stay fully updated on
(that is why JIRA has the watch functionality). For those who want to
keep track of every single jira update going on then they can join the
full traffic list. I think that is a good compromise between both
worlds. My 2 cents.
-- amr
Doug Cutting wrote:
Owen O'Malley wrote:
I think the community is better served by having a mailing list that
is dominated by people posting rather than a deluge of jira traffic.
This is a somewhat false dichotomy: Jira messages are postings by
people. Folks should not make changes in Jira without realizing this.
This is one reason why I've long advocated that we should remove the
ability for folks to edit Jira comments or for anyone but admins to
remove Jira comments. If we disable emails then this becomes even
more essential: folks should not be able to re-write project history.
Jira actions are project actions, and the Apache convention is that
project actions should be logged on public mailing lists. We should
change that policy cautiously and only after consideration.
Choices:
1. create/resolve/close to dev
2. create/resolve/close to dev, others to jira
3. create/comment/resolve/close to dev
4. all to dev
The problem with 3 is that you can add comments on most of the
actions. So either you capture all events or you only capture part of
the comments.
(4) Send create/resolve to -dev and all others to -issues (a new list)
plus prohibit all comment edits and permit comment deletion only by
admins. (Closing is not generally interesting, since it's only done
to seal an issue once its included in a release.)
+1 for (4)
Doug
