> On Dec 9, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > The important point is a less-busy dev@.
Well, I want the right discussion on dev@, not just less discussion. Now that I go back and look over the recent archives, it's not clear to me at all that if we drop all the duplication we are now getting because of Jira-GH-dev reflection that dev@ is actually too busy. > So can you +1 the discussion now Not yet, because it is not clear to me that this is the minimal improvement. (see below) > Whatever we do, we can fine-tune later when we see how it works in practice. > >> I wouldn't subscribe to a pr@ list. GH's native service for that kind of >> communication is much better than any email list. > (Though if you subscribe, can't you then choose not to have notifications > direct?) I'm not sure why I would want to use a clunky and less-functional (no reply-to to comment on PR, non-formatting-aware) email list instead of the more powerful _and_ more pleasant GH system. No offense meant to INFRA; they are amazing people who often accomplish more in an hour than I often do in a day, but a mailing list is no substitute for the sophisticated integration that GH has done for email notifications and PRs. > Agreed. (But that's actually separate from splitting the dev@ list.) > I checked and it does not happen in some other projects so it does look > possible. > Before I go and talk to infra, I do need to show its the PMC wanting to make > changes. That (getting traffic off Jira and thereby lowering the _duplicated_ traffic to dec@) is actually the major change that interests me. I am ready to +1 a change that reduces the duplication without doing anything else more then necessary. Are you willing to start with a smaller proposal? 1. Turn off auto-mirroring of all PR comments (which now starts once a ticket is mentioned) from GH to Jira. Perhaps it could be manually triggered per-comment by mentioning the ticket, or some other more "throttled" way, but of course we need to talk to INFRA to see what is possible. and 2. Put PR comments on a separate pr@ list to record them. I suspect that will reduce the dev@ traffic enough that we may not have to do anything else. No more PR comment ping-pong might mean no new issues@ list. > I want to get to tickets as soon as possible. At the moment we have some > ideas and next we can get some agreed general directions. > e.g. new API in addition to a ported existing one?; or changes within the > existing one? > Tickets work best for getting taking a proposal through the details. We need > the proposal first. Otherwise tickets are a record of ideas with unclear > commitment to progress. Too many tickets dilutes discussion I think our confusion is exactly over what a "proposal" is. From my POV, we already have bunch of proposals, just at different stages of detail. (see below re: concreteness) As for the issue you specifically give as an example-- I'm a bit surprised. I had understood us to be specifically talking about a new API. I am much less interested in evolving the old one radically. To be clear, I don't mean that I want to throw it away or anything insane like that, just that in the new proposal space we have no reason to worry about backward compatibility. Of course we'll want to start abstractly with the current API because it is successful and encodes a lot of hard-earnt experience. But it's a new API that we are talking about in my mind. All that having been said, I'm not able to step up with a bunch of volunteer hours right now ($job is becoming progressively less interested in semweb and less willing to allocate time for suchlike), so if the community feels that a stark new API is too ambitious, fair enough. > You (ajs6f) put forward some general ideas (Nov 21) in other Model APIs and > SPARQL - how about moving those into some thing more concrete , not necessary > complete (!), so we can see where it leads to? I don't understand what you want to see here before filing a ticket. Can you point at an example that is "more concrete, [but] not necessary complete" so I can get the sense of it? That would really help me. Adam
