The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair. @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
named git...@activemq.apache.org When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox, for that. and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I believe I will need infra to help on that. On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, so far the best choice is git...@activemq.apache.org > > > 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 > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell > > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019 18:53 (GMT+00:00) To: > > dev@activemq.apache.org 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>> 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> > > > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> 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 <> > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> Date: > > 21/02/2019 17:49 (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org 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 issues@.Yes, > > 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<michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> 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 <> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019 16:05 > > (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org 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 > > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> > > > Gemmell<robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I> > > > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are> > > > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> > > > git...@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @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 <tabish...@gmail.com> > > 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 > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer > > issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at > > 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > 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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>> > > > > >>> 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 > > gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie> > Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>> > > > > >>>> 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 <> > > >>>>> > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 <> > > >>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> 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 <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > 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> > > >>>>>>>> <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>> > 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 <> > > >>>>> > > > michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> 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 <> > > >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019 > > 22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org 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 <> > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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 > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are probably > > missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, > > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <opi...@redhat.com>>> > > > >>>> > > 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 <> > >> > > >>>> > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>>> > > > 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 -- Clebert Suconic
