s/dev list followers/<your community>/
That’s (one of) the disconnect(s). It’s not *you the emboldened, powerful PMC*
and then everyone else.
On 8/15/16, 11:25 AM, "Jeremy Hanna" <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding high level linking, if I’m in irc or slack or hipchat or a
mailing list thread, it’s easy to reference a Jira ID and chat programs can
link to it and bots can bring up various details. I don’t think a hash id for
a mailing list is as simple or memorable.
A feature of a mailing list thread is that it can go in different
directions easily. The burden is that it will be harder to follow in the
future if you’re trying to sort out implementation details. So for high level
discussion, the mailing list is great. When getting down to the actual work
and discussion about that focused work, that’s where a tool like Jira comes in.
Then it is reference-able in the changes.txt and other things.
I think the approach proposed by Jonathan is a nice way to keep dev list
followers informed but keeping ticket details focused.
> On Aug 15, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> How is it harder to point someone to mail?
>
> Have you seen lists.apache.org?
>
> Specifically:
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
> On 8/15/16, 10:08 AM, "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
>
>
>
>
