Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for
discussions.
Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote.
When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to,
not some minority or rogue action.
On 19/11/2019 19:55, aj...@apache.org wrote:
Andy, you've given a nice list of potential discussions and others have as
well. My meta-question is when do we want to switch to tickets for this
process? I don't want to smother discussion in process, but I find it very
hard to follow a multithreaded discussion over email and I much prefer
breaking things out early to more specifics.
Splitting the lists will make it easier. I think we switch to tickets
when there specific activities. When sorting what the activities are,
there is benefit in using dev@ so we can see the interactions more
clearly. With a quieter dev@, sensible [] should mean anyone can see the
overall activity. We can change this if it does not work out.
List proposal:
2 new lists: issues@ (for JIRA) and pr@ (for github traffic).
Reply-to on JIRA becomes a comment (which I think it does at the moment
- the reply is j...@apache.org)
For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on
GH so the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe archive.
Using the same names as other projects helps infrequent visitors to
navigate our lists. "issues" is a common name; there isn't a common name
for the "pr" that I found - and it's not that common to split out GH.
(Cassandra have pr@).
If anyone wants to combine issues@and pr@ they can do so with their own
mail filtering rules.
Routing:
JIRA:
There are bunch of events:
Issue Created
Issue Updated
Issue Assigned
Issue Resolved
Issue Closed
Issue Commented
Issue Comment Edited
Issue Comment Deleted
Issue Reopened
Issue Deleted
Issue Moved
These are all:
All Watchers
Current Assignee
Reporter
Single Email Address (dev@jena.apache.org)
I suggest that all go to issues@ and, in addition, "Created" goes to dev@
I think PRs are linked to JIRA by the title JENA-NNNN. We don't need pr
discussion on JIRA if we have pr@ but it probably isn't a big deal
because either it's a PR discussion or JIRA discussion, rarely both.
(but please keep the "^JENA-NNNN:" on PRs)
Github: I don't know what's possible.
My ideal is all PR traffic to pr@, and like JIRA, any created PRs
notices go to dev@.
(There aren't a GH issues for the Apache mirrored projects)
Andy
On 02/06/2019 13:57, ajs6f wrote:
I like the idea of breaking PR discussions off, but if we're going to continue
to copy PR comments onto Jira tickets it only makes sense if we have separate
pr@ and issue@ lists. Also, we would have to stop copying them onto dev@ (which
I would be fine with).
Ideally, I would like to see ticket _creation_ cc:ed onto dev@, so that any
interested parties would be aware without having to set up notifications in
Jira, but other ticket actions not cc:ed. I'm not sure if that's possible with
our gear, but I'm sure INFRA can tell us.
ajs6f
On May 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
The dev@ list can be dominated by github discussions.
We have feeds from github PRs and JIRA. We could split the list in one list per
feed to leave the dev@ list for people.
While you can do this with mail client rules, searching using the archives
isn't easy.
Suggestion:
Add email lists for:
pr@ -- github pull request discussions.
issues@ -- JIRA
I'm not sure how clever we can be - for example, it would be nice for dev@ to
get an email for the submission of a pull request, then not the discussion, but
I don't think that is configurable. (It is all INFRa consifuration anyway
AFAIK).
These names are the ones I have seen other projects use.
Thoughts?
What have you seen work for other projects?
Andy
