We should start a new vote for issues@. We've already voted to merge dev@ and keep the user lists as is.
On 28 March 2017 at 14:18, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes, I think combining the "user@" and "dev@" variants into two are > appropriate. +1 (non-binding) for me. > > Furthermore --- and this has always been a scratch of mine to itch (and I > raise this about once a year!) -- I would like a dedicated "issues@" > mailing list like other Apache projects. The traditional answer back to me > is "I setup filters for this so you can too" but I would just prefer the > separation. The separation also makes it easier to browse the "dev@" > archives. So for 2017, what do you guys say? Can we finally get that going > this time around? > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> Any update on this? >> >> Ralph >> >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Matt! >> >> Ralph >> >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list >> with bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today. >> >> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions? >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I got this response from Gavin: >>> >>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request. >>> >>> Merging the lists - no problem >>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem >>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list >>> - no problem >>> >>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if >>> they forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the >>> hint. >>> >>> If you are :- >>> >>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users >>> know this is happening and the date then let me know. >>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate >>> further. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me >>>> follow up with infra. >>>> >>>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is there any follow-up to this? >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. That seems fine to me. >>>>> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender >>>>> but still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even >>>>> add >>>>> [list] to the start of the subject line. >>>>> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Some things: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Archives won't be merged. >>>>> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email >>>>> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved >>>>> over >>>>> to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer. >>>>> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically >>>>> subscribed to the combined list. >>>>> >>>>> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform >>>>> senders to use the new list? >>>>> >>>>> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache. >>>>>> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and >>>>>>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Total agreement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses >>>>>>>>> dropped the other lists. This is a horrible way to have discussions >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> affect all the sub projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the >>>>>>>>> subprojects. Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> it useful for his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in >>>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and >>>>>>>>> C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar >>>>>>>>> architectures >>>>>>>>> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more >>>>>>>>> inclusive >>>>>>>>> conversations about this would be great. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine >>>>>>>>> .com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the >>>>>>>>>> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the >>>>>>>>>> subprojects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner < >>>>>>>>>> dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging >>>>>>>>>>> projects to become very similar in their usage, starting with the >>>>>>>>>>> same or a >>>>>>>>>>> very similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one >>>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>> Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification >>>>>>>>>>> implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That >>>>>>>>>>> means all >>>>>>>>>>> the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good >>>>>>>>>>> reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the >>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>> use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those >>>>>>>>>>> mailing >>>>>>>>>>> lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience. >>>>>>>>>>> Just >>>>>>>>>>> quoting the last few messages of two user mailing lists I follow: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before >>>>>>>>>>> that about two weeks ago >>>>>>>>>>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic >>>>>>>>>>> before that a month ago >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that >>>>>>>>>>> might be of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, >>>>>>>>>>> these are >>>>>>>>>>> just release announcements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether >>>>>>>>>>> we should >>>>>>>>>>> merge the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for >>>>>>>>>>> all devs >>>>>>>>>>> to subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I >>>>>>>>>>> don't know what that list is for). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme. >>>>>>>>>>> com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes >>>>>>>>>>>> are “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s >>>>>>>>>>>> lists separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things >>>>>>>>>>>> that would >>>>>>>>>>>> need to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing >>>>>>>>>>>> lists so that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> summarize the current state of the vote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> >>>>>>>>>>>> d...@logging.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph Goers: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Stefan Bodewig: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Sven Rautenverg: -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Thorsten Schöning: -0 >>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Habunek: -0 >>>>>>>>>>>> Dominik Psenner: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Remko Popma: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal: +0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Totals so far: >>>>>>>>>>>> +1: 5 >>>>>>>>>>>> +0: 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> -0: 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> -1: 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ >>>>>>>>>>>> -> u...@logging.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker: -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph Goers: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Stefan Bodewig: -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Sven Rautenverg: -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Thorsten Schöning: -0 >>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Habunek: -0 >>>>>>>>>>>> Dominik Psenner: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Remko Popma: +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal: -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Totals so far: >>>>>>>>>>>> +1: 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> +0: 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> -0: 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> -1: 4 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just >>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed to half of them less than five minutes ago. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> >>>>>>>>>>>> d...@logging.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, >>>>>>>>>>>> general@ -> u...@logging.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become >>>>>>>>>>>> aliases for the combined email names so as not to lose any future >>>>>>>>>>>> emails. >>>>>>>>>>>> To distinguish between projects, a subject tag can be added such >>>>>>>>>>>> as: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [java] >>>>>>>>>>>> [net] >>>>>>>>>>>> [cxx] >>>>>>>>>>>> [php] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it >>>>>>>>>>>> should help in gaining the attention of the appropriate audience. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Voting: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1: Yes, combine the mailing lists! >>>>>>>>>>>> +0: Go ahead, don't care that much. >>>>>>>>>>>> -0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it. >>>>>>>>>>>> -1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> binding, no -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot. >>>>>>>>>>>> The vote >>>>>>>>>>>> will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> [image: MagineTV] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal* >>>>>>>>>> Senior software developer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Magine TV* >>>>>>>>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com >>>>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.magine.com/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in >>>>>>>>>> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >>>>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), >>>>>>>>>> you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >>>>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by >>>>>>>>>> reply email. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
