2 thoughts: 1: I'd hate to see our daily test email getting lost in a flood of jira ticket opening / commenting on trivial day-to-day work. I already have email filters for those from the JIRA feed and, while I could also set up filters on this list, that's an extra burden to participation for new contributors in my opinion and doesn't add any value over the current project workflow.
2: 8844 would have been a great candidate for being discussed on the mailing list rather than on JIRA. While I made it a point to front-load design, we still ran into some unforeseen consequences from the design that might have been prevented by more wide-spread discussion. In my opinion, it would have made sense to have the initial discussion(s) take place on the mailing list until a design had settled out, worked that design and the day-to-day back and forth on JIRA, then bringing it back to the mailing list when we ran into the problems with the design. I'm personally not in favor of having all discussion for tickets hit the dev mailing list as we essentially already have a list for that, however I do believe we should make better use of our dev list. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Nate McCall <n...@thelastpickle.com> wrote: > > 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. > > > > So the goal is to mitigate some of the (in most cases necessary) noise that > bloated CASSANDRA-8844? (There are others, but this is a good example.) > > > > 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. > > > > In the case of CASSANDRA-8844, if Tupshin posted his summary here first, > would this have streamlined some of the discussion? Again, if Josh had > circled back around on the ML with some of his findings during > implementation as opposed to Jira, would this be more clear to understand > the ongoing development? (I'm not sure myself, just raising these for > thinking about). > > There are some good points made on the concerns of traffic and > fragmentation, so to refocus this discussion, we seem to have some general > agreement on: > 1. large contributions/design ideas would make sense to 'announce' on the > ML (this will inherently inspire some level of discussion) > 2. linking back to relevant ML announcements from Jira is a good practice > > I feel like starting here would be a good first step towards higher > engagement on the ML w/o blowing up the traffic and potentially doing a bit > of streamlining on our biggest issues. > > Thoughts? > > -Nate >
