I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita <mor.y...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able > to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later. > > I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm > interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number > written to the comment or text. > If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to > that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that > isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA. > > So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list. > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there > needs to be > > inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start > to that. > > I hope to see more inclusivity here. > > > > > > > > On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed, > it wouldn’t be an issue. > > > > The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a > summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc). > > > > No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements > and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested. > > > > This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important, > and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from > > dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you > don’t care about. > > > > We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should. > > > > -- > > AY > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org) > wrote: > > > > Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is > fine, but realize, > > there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be > watching > > the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all > so you are basically > > forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in > JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs > on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it > belongs. > > > > You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to > dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about. > > > > -- > > AY > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan ( > jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one > place, and it is easy to refer someone to it in the future. > > But I agree that JIRA tickets with a bunch of design discussion and > POC’s and such in them can get pretty long and convoluted. > > > > I don’t really like the idea of moving all of that discussion to > email which makes it has harder to point someone to it. Maybe a better idea > would be to have a “design/POC” JIRA and an “implementation” JIRA. That way > we could still keep things in JIRA, but the final decision would be kept > “clean”. > > > > Though it would be nice if people would send an email to the dev > list when proposing “design” JIRA’s, as not everyone has time to follow > every JIRA ever made to see that a new design JIRA was created that they > might be interested in participating on. > > > > My 2c. > > > > -Jeremiah > > > > > > > On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development > discussions > > > on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless > nature > > > helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked. > > > > > > But Cassandra was a lot smaller then, and as we've grown it has > become > > > necessary to separate out the signal (discussions of new features > and major > > > changes) from the noise of routine bug reports. > > > > > > I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that > > > separation. Major new features and architectural improvements > should be > > > discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, > moved to > > > Jira for implementation and review. > > > > > > I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea > proves > > > to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much > > > discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion > was, as > > > review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that > discussion on the > > > list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this. > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Yuki Morishita > t:yukim (http://twitter.com/yukim) >
