On 21 January 2013 19:35, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robbie Gemmell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > In what sense are we special in our user/developer distinction? I can't > > really think of anything to particularly support that. > > Not to make too much of it, but many of our users are themselves > developers. They can understand and transition to straight up Qpid > development with relative ease. >
I can see what you are saying there though I think that is actually true for a lot of projects, perhaps even the majority of those at the ASF for example. > Also, For most projects, in my experience, the users list is primarily > for people seeking help. It's quite atypical to hold roadmap > discussions on users lists. > > > In terms of JIRA traffic going to dev, actually I consider it detrimental > > that everyone filters JIRAs off and never bothers to actually look at > JIRA. > > Patches continually sit on JIRAs for weeks/months/years before anyone > picks > > them up (e.g when I send out an email moaning about how many hundred open > > JIRAs we have, or how many open JIRAs are assigned to already-released > > versions, at a particular point in time) as so many people clearly never > > bother looking at JIRA. That said, I do agree that such traffic shouldnt > [snip] > > The moaning is of course completely justified. I don't, however, > think that the experiment of addressing this problem by sending jira > traffic to the devel list has succeeded. > I'm not sure I would call it an experiment given its always been that way and its what many projects do given it is generally directly related to development, but I can at least acknowledge that some projects do separate JIRA traffic from their dev@ and user@ lists. If we are intending to move most development related discussion away from dev@ then I would probably just leave the existing list in place with the JIRA traffic continuing to be directed at it, as asking the volunteer staff to make new lists and update the various pieces to basically do the same thing with a new name seems unnecessary (not to mention requiring everyone update their subscriptions and/or filters). > > If we were to make a new general discussion list (replacing users@ and > > adding ddeelopment discussion) then discuss@ seems reasonable to me, > but I > > think the other things are served equally well by whats already here > now. I > > seem to recall picking notifications@ for the Jenkins emails because I > read > > previous mailing lsit creation requests where infra had pushed back on > > other projects wanting myothername@ for their lists to be used for the > same > > purpose. > > I think notifications@ is fine. > > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
