Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already*
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. The
mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. They *are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.
On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
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)
>
