It should also be noted that Dan asked if the community felt that we needed a separate commit list, and the decision not to have one was provisional. We can have one now.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Andreas Veithen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:29, Lars Schnoor <[email protected]> wrote: >> It wasn't my intention to insult people, but my experience has shown that >> people are more likely to react to direct statements. So I apologize to >> those that felt insulted. >> >> My use of the word SPAM was meant with respect to the amount messages >> received and the fact that they are of no interest to me, just like SPAM is. >> I am and have been on a number of mailing lists but not one has managed to >> send 29 messages about commits in only ONE minute. > > These message were caused by a single commit that updated the Axiom > site after the 1.2.10 release. This is standard procedure in ASF > projects that generate their sites using Maven. However, in most > cases, the number of updates is so high that the SVN notification is > suppressed. This happened for the 1.2.9 release [1]. One may indeed > wonder if it is reasonable to send full SVN commit notifications > consisting of 29 parts (it seems that the limit is 50 parts), but we > don't have control over that (at least I think). It should be noted > that this happens with a frequency that is of order of once per year. > > [1] http://markmail.org/thread/rhh56q4assnqqrcw > >> My use of the word professional was meant with respect to merging the lists >> without asking the people affect beforehand (there was at least nothing on >> the XML-RPC list) and after a couple of days asking if it was a mistake and >> when people answer that is was ignore that. >> >> Sagara, no, not redoing the change but undo the change, or at least remove >> the XML-RPC list from the merger. >> >> I assumed that the mailing lists were intended to serve as communication >> channels among people involved. The flood of unsubscribes should have shown >> that people aren't very happy about this merger and every unsubscribe means >> one less possible contributer. To me it sounded like there was a lack of >> contributers and how many contributers do you think you will get by having >> them bombarded with messages? >> >> >> On 04-11-2010 09:26, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Kulp<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The BEST model to look at is the commons project at Apache. They have a >>>> very >>>> diverse set of sub projects and have been very successful at being able >>>> to >>>> provide adequate oversight on all the projects. How do they do it: they >>>> MANDATE that there are not separate dev lists for each project. >>> >>> It is also the best example of a mailing list with an extremely bad >>> ratio between noise and content, at least for me. >>> >>> >>> >>>> If the traffic about a particulare subproject grows enough to overwelm >>>> the >>>> rest of the projects, that's usually a sign that it's ready to spin out. >>>> Thus, if you don't like it, start participating with XML-RPC, submit >>>> patches, >>>> foster ideas, etc.... and help it grow to a point where it's ready to >>>> graduate. >>> >>> XML-RPC is most likely not a project which will grow. It is in >>> maintenance mode and has been just that for a couple of years. It is >>> extremely unlikely that you have a chance to attract interest for the >>> ws project under its contributors / users, unless they move their >>> professional interest, which would be an event unrelated to either >>> projects. >>> >>> Jochen >>> >> >
