On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:33:49PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Looking at:
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Dev-f1639786.html > depending on time of day you find 50-90% patch mails on there. As the writer > of > mail forward I have been repeatedly asked if we can kill this spam. > I fully agree with this sentiment (...) > So, is there anyone who is _not_ a sponsored developer opposing to > kill the mail spammage? I'm unhappy about the current situation, but in the *other* direction. The most important part of gerrit is the *discussion* on patches, and that's absent from the current mails; having to constantly go to a browser is disruptive; Mail / mailing lists have all kind of tools that I can use to manage what I'm interested in and what not, from e.g. "ignore this thread", "watch this thread", etc, which gerrit only imperfectly has. Even more basically: when it is a mailing list, my MUA keeps track for me of what I have read and what I have not read yet, which gerrit does not do at all. (Never mind that the tools I have to manage mailing list mails are under my control and choice: I can patch my MUA locally, but I'm dependent on what the centrally installed gerrit offers as services.) So, that's "IMO"; obviously a ML is a shared resource, so if the others disagree... > - could this be mitigated by a separate gerrit-patches mailing list? Yes. I would call it "patch-discuss" or "code-discuss" rather than "gerrit-patches"; gerrit is just *one* technical way to submit / discuss patches, there is AFAIK no reason to separate "gerrit" patches from "sent to Mailing List" patches. Actually, separating: 1) discussion on "exact code" (a concrete patch) on the one hand, and 2) general design discussions, process discussions, "hi I'm a new developer" mail, etc. into two different mailing lists could make sense. That is generalising a bit your proposal, but to me it makes sense :) > - could this be mitigated by a daily digest of "gerrit news"? If I can "undigest" it automatically on my side, I don't mind. > - could this be mitigated by other means? Probably. > Not that this does: > - not mean that it is evil to send a patch to the list (although its a bit > misguided given how gerrit simplifies and enables things ;) ) It would make more sense to me that a patch manually sent to "the list" goes to the same list as the gerrit patches. -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice