As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code reviews. My arguments are: 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to reviews@, etc.). 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools often aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies 'manual' searching.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks > complain it's still not good enough. > > J-D > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in pushing > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move the > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe to > and > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of > every > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where to > > move it *to*. > > > > There were two options: > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list > > 2) use a new reviews@ list > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when someone > is > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily > create a > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to just > JIRA > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an > easy > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can always > > separate them back out. > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent', though > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale. > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be > great > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our > > upcoming podling report. > > > > -Todd > > >
