+1 for splitŠ I already have email filters to catch the gerrit stuff though, but I can see the reasoning behind splitting it.
On 5/2/16, 1:40 PM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <[email protected]> wrote: >I'm +0 with the split. > >On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the >>longest >> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate list. >> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea for >> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML. >> >> -Todd >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the >> other >> > way then no big deal. >> > >> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to >> JIRA >> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review >> traffic >> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way >> (however, >> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to). >> > >> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search >> index >> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it, >> since >> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>
