gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell
<[email protected]> Date: 22/02/2019 18:53 (GMT+00:00) To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a
separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to say I
dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally (asI can
just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no bigdeal).I am -1 on
using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are not commits mails.I think
the mails relate very closely with what is on issues@currently, since its
largely duplicated and I think people interestedin one set should already be
follwing both sets, so I said I wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere.
Chris and Tim appeared tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see
need to move themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but
wont objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list
ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too bothered
wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and knownperiod
to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You suggestedgitbox@ yesterday
and I asked for a timeline on when you might usethat so its clear at what point
you consider lazy concensus agreed forgoing with it if noone replies discussing
things further.RobbieOn Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> wrote:>> 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
