Ya, if we keep general@ to it's intended purpose (and better document/enforce the use of various lists) then there is no need for a new list. I'll make the edit's Owen suggested to the revamped mailing_lists.html.
I'm still confused, however, where release discussions should happen. general@ or common-...@? I guess I'll leave them on general@ unless this is enough opposition to that. Nige On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Ian Holsman wrote: > to add some metrics to this discussion. > > we have ~3,500 unique email addresses subscribed to at least one hadoop > mailing list. > > > subscribed to: > 1 list : 2431 > 2 lists: 784 > 3 lists: 238 > 4 lists: 118 > 5 lists: 56 > 6 lists: 66 > 7 lists: 102 > > (I didn't look at the various 'issues or commits' mailing lists). > > So I'm not really sure adding another list will get more focused discussions, > or further split up the community. > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > >> >> On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Nigel Daley wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:35 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: >>>>> We do try to move the questions off of general. It would be great if >>>>> someone >>>>> updated the website with the intended usage of each of the lists. >>>> >>>> Ok, I'll work on a page. >>> >>> Done. See the revamped http://hadoop.apache.org/mailing_lists.html >>> Corrections welcome. You must now click on general@ to see the >>> subscription instructions (it's a new page). >> >> I'd suggest segregating the list into 4 tables based on audience: >> >> user questions: >> common-user >> hdfs-user >> mapreduce-user >> security - only for notifying the project of security vulnerabilities >> >> project level announcements and discussions: >> general >> >> developer questions: >> common-dev >> hdfs-dev >> mapreduce-dev >> >> jira and subversion tracking for developers: >> common-issues >> common-commits >> hdfs-issues >> hdfs-commits >> >> mapreduce-issues >> mapreduce-commits >> >> -- Owen >
