I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need when I search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports are usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation details (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives anyway, because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to the source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code reviews). But I imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: bug reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both code > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in commit > messages and code review conversation? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
