Ok, so far the best choice is [email protected]
If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for objections. On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -- Clebert Suconic
