Is there a standard for this you're going by, which we should consider formally adopting? Or is this just how you subjectively think it should work?
Unlike [VOTE] or [ANNOUNCE], where I think we're all pretty much on the same page, it seems very likely to me that there are many different opinions about when [DISCUSS] is necessary and when it is implied, as well as very many different ways people filter their mailing list emails. (FWIW, I personally write my filters to omit things I'm not interested in, rather than positively flag things I am interested in.) If there's some proposed objective standard, though, which would be useful to adopt as a group and which would be useful to many people, I'd be interested in considering adopting that (at least, for conversations I initiate on the mailing lists). -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > [DISCUSS] is generally used to flag threads that the sender expects to be > of higher priority interest as a courtesy to folks who may not have time to > read all of the threads that happen on a mailing list, similar to how > [VOTE] is used to signal PMC members who might be otherwise filtering. > > I would be surprised if all the messages on any mailing list warranted a > [DISCUSS] flagging. > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists? >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >> > in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of >> > threads. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > My assumption was to knock them both out. >> >> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will that >> >> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help roll >> >> >> out 1.5.4 quickly. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I >> >> recreated >> >> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle on >> >> 1.5.4 >> >> >> and >> >> >> > try to drop it again after. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Josh >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sean >> > > > > -- > Sean
