I see [DISCUSS] threads tending to discuss either big features, or the direction of the project. There are plenty of other threads on dev@ that look more like bug reports, architecture questions, or otherwise focused on implementation details. My two kopeks.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
