So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose. If you would rather -1 please say so.
Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post your preference? On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd > prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0 > hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other > people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like > this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like > these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own. > Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going) > into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on > things from them. > > I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic > (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing > issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need > be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the > comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly > contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two > non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of > content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development > to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at > just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined. > Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either, > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing > otherwise however). > > Robbie > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell < > [email protected]> Date: 21/02/2019 17:49 (GMT+00:00) To: > [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages > on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described > is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related > PRcomments to [email protected], moving it to issues@ would then move more > traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, > distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be > occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of > highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated > withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany > folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the > dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they > wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing > to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, > michael.andre.pearce<[email protected]> wrote:>> 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 > -- Clebert Suconic
