If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be
against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it
to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can
apply to then that list. E.g. what if i just want what i signed up to before
and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is
moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> Date: 21/02/2019 16:05 (GMT+00:00) To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a
separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to
cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process
here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future.
Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're
moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested
a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with
[email protected] Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie
Gemmell<[email protected]> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think
the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent
commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the
underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it.
Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also
typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog,
so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or
may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>>
Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its
own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I
would go with [email protected]> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0
on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such
changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The
noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i
have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be
able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37
AM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM,
Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie. I sent this message on feb-14. JB
suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him. So I assumed consensus.> >
> >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make
a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd
go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have
to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail
filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at
8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > >
>> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21,
2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]>> > > >> wrote:> > >
>>> > > >>> This is a simple task. I did not think it would be a big deal.
Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters
them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can
filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees
looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly. I think
the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can
move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA. If not please let Me know.>
> > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell
<[email protected]>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually
overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically
"activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address
of [email protected]?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu,
21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>> > > >>>>
wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they
have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have
updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list
called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using
https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just
re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and
I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we
should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name
(which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we
can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use
it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at
12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> [email protected]> wrote:> > >
>>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > >
>>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On
Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
[email protected]> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally
involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree
with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread
had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>>
discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>>
discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>>
suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some
of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone
really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new
list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used
throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for
instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using
"commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>>
belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>>
JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd
say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to
be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks
mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
>>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > >
>>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > >
>>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the
same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically
just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were
going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On
Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
[email protected]> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm
asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.>
> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM
Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>
Don’t get me wrong. I can do with filters personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>>
joining in. Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > >
>>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this. We could ask Infra to move
GitHub messages> > > >>>> to a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow
GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If
people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>
[email protected]> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on
this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to
maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one
mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > >
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
[email protected]> Date: 15/02/2019 22:39 (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>>
[email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>>
messages on a separate list The thing is. I can do fine with filtering.> > >
>>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > >
>>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone coming on board now. Justtrying
to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM
Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:> I am +0
on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do
mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton
of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I
have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub
related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a>
different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers
have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert
Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably
missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15,
2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <[email protected]>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > >
Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute>
more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the
Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>>
requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > >
>>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> >
>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > >
>>>> [email protected]>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > >
>>>> list on my daily basis. We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing>
> > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter
out> > > >>>> stuff with filters. Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make
easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard
from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too>
> > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow. So I
propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > >
>> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and
important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural
decisions. Releases. And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but
without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > >
>> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic>
>>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > >
>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > >
>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > >
>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> >
> --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic
