I think that's a good idea. (I really wish we could have fewer duplicate emails though.)
Remko > On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:59, Dominik Psenner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stuff that requires human intervention should stay prominent. The rest can > go away. :-) > > 2017-10-12 23:06 GMT+02:00 Ralph Goers <[email protected]>: > >> It will also make the quarterly board reports more accurate. >> reporter.apache.org provides the number of emails received on the list >> during the quarter. In my view, having the GitHub, Jira, Jenkins, etc >> emails on the dev list skews things as they dominate they number of “real” >> discussion emails that happen on the list, which is what I think is the >> important part of what the board wants to know. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If it makes email filter rules easier to configure, I'd say go for it. >> It'd >>> be just like the commits@ list though with floods of emails coming in >> every >>> so often that I just have to skip over (e.g., rebasing a long lived >> branch). >>> >>> On 12 October 2017 at 15:45, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I do not care either way. >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Ralph Goers < >> [email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What do others think about the idea of creating a separate mailing list >>>>> for emails generated by tools? This list gets a bit noisy from all the >>>>> extra emails and I have a hard time filtering this list because of how >>>> some >>>>> of the emails are generated. >>>>> >>>>> I would also say that we expect every committer to be subscribed to >> that >>>>> list. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dominik Psenner
