Re: changes to Apache Jena site documentation
Yes, a committer needs to push the change through to be committed to the documentation base, and then the site must be published. We always publish for a release, but we can publish at other times, too, if needed. I do not recall seeing the actual change come across dev@ (which it normally would). Do you have a link to the patch in the Apache CMS handy? I am happy to review and commit it. ajs6f > On Dec 4, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Marco Neumann wrote: > > I have made some changes to the documentation on the jena.apache.org site > with the anonymous username and can indeed see these changes now in the > edit view but not in the live view. Is this correct behavior, does this > change wait for some admin approval? > > -- > > > --- > Marco Neumann > KONA
Re: [Discuss] Split the dev@ mailing list?
Yes. This works for me as I already have filters that essentially do the separation proposed pretty well. Colin A. Gross On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:11 AM Andy Seaborne wrote: > Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for > discussions. > > Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote. > When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to, > not some minority or rogue action. > > On 19/11/2019 19:55, aj...@apache.org wrote: > > > > Andy, you've given a nice list of potential discussions and others have > as > > well. My meta-question is when do we want to switch to tickets for this > > process? I don't want to smother discussion in process, but I find it > very > > hard to follow a multithreaded discussion over email and I much prefer > > breaking things out early to more specifics. > > Splitting the lists will make it easier. I think we switch to tickets > when there specific activities. When sorting what the activities are, > there is benefit in using dev@ so we can see the interactions more > clearly. With a quieter dev@, sensible [] should mean anyone can see the > overall activity. We can change this if it does not work out. > > List proposal: > > 2 new lists: issues@ (for JIRA) and pr@ (for github traffic). > > Reply-to on JIRA becomes a comment (which I think it does at the moment > - the reply is j...@apache.org) > > For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on > GH so the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe > archive. > > Using the same names as other projects helps infrequent visitors to > navigate our lists. "issues" is a common name; there isn't a common name > for the "pr" that I found - and it's not that common to split out GH. > (Cassandra have pr@). > > If anyone wants to combine issues@and pr@ they can do so with their own > mail filtering rules. > > Routing: > > JIRA: > > There are bunch of events: > > Issue Created > Issue Updated > Issue Assigned > Issue Resolved > Issue Closed > Issue Commented > Issue Comment Edited > Issue Comment Deleted > Issue Reopened > Issue Deleted > Issue Moved > > These are all: > > All Watchers > Current Assignee > Reporter > Single Email Address (dev@jena.apache.org) > > I suggest that all go to issues@ and, in addition, "Created" goes to dev@ > > I think PRs are linked to JIRA by the title JENA-. We don't need pr > discussion on JIRA if we have pr@ but it probably isn't a big deal > because either it's a PR discussion or JIRA discussion, rarely both. > > (but please keep the "^JENA-:" on PRs) > > Github: I don't know what's possible. > > My ideal is all PR traffic to pr@, and like JIRA, any created PRs > notices go to dev@. > > (There aren't a GH issues for the Apache mirrored projects) > > Andy > > On 02/06/2019 13:57, ajs6f wrote: > > I like the idea of breaking PR discussions off, but if we're going to > continue to copy PR comments onto Jira tickets it only makes sense if we > have separate pr@ and issue@ lists. Also, we would have to stop copying > them onto dev@ (which I would be fine with). > > > > Ideally, I would like to see ticket _creation_ cc:ed onto dev@, so that > any interested parties would be aware without having to set up > notifications in Jira, but other ticket actions not cc:ed. I'm not sure if > that's possible with our gear, but I'm sure INFRA can tell us. > > > > ajs6f > > > >> On May 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> > >> The dev@ list can be dominated by github discussions. > >> > >> We have feeds from github PRs and JIRA. We could split the list in one > list per feed to leave the dev@ list for people. > >> > >> While you can do this with mail client rules, searching using the > archives isn't easy. > >> > >> Suggestion: > >> Add email lists for: > >> > >> pr@ -- github pull request discussions. > >> issues@ -- JIRA > >> > >> I'm not sure how clever we can be - for example, it would be nice for > dev@ to get an email for the submission of a pull request, then not the > discussion, but I don't think that is configurable. (It is all INFRa > consifuration anyway AFAIK). > >> > >> These names are the ones I have seen other projects use. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> What have you seen work for other projects? > >> > >> Andy > >> > > >
[Discuss] Split the dev@ mailing list?
Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for discussions. Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote. When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to, not some minority or rogue action. On 19/11/2019 19:55, aj...@apache.org wrote: Andy, you've given a nice list of potential discussions and others have as well. My meta-question is when do we want to switch to tickets for this process? I don't want to smother discussion in process, but I find it very hard to follow a multithreaded discussion over email and I much prefer breaking things out early to more specifics. Splitting the lists will make it easier. I think we switch to tickets when there specific activities. When sorting what the activities are, there is benefit in using dev@ so we can see the interactions more clearly. With a quieter dev@, sensible [] should mean anyone can see the overall activity. We can change this if it does not work out. List proposal: 2 new lists: issues@ (for JIRA) and pr@ (for github traffic). Reply-to on JIRA becomes a comment (which I think it does at the moment - the reply is j...@apache.org) For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on GH so the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe archive. Using the same names as other projects helps infrequent visitors to navigate our lists. "issues" is a common name; there isn't a common name for the "pr" that I found - and it's not that common to split out GH. (Cassandra have pr@). If anyone wants to combine issues@and pr@ they can do so with their own mail filtering rules. Routing: JIRA: There are bunch of events: Issue Created Issue Updated Issue Assigned Issue Resolved Issue Closed Issue Commented Issue Comment Edited Issue Comment Deleted Issue Reopened Issue Deleted Issue Moved These are all: All Watchers Current Assignee Reporter Single Email Address (dev@jena.apache.org) I suggest that all go to issues@ and, in addition, "Created" goes to dev@ I think PRs are linked to JIRA by the title JENA-. We don't need pr discussion on JIRA if we have pr@ but it probably isn't a big deal because either it's a PR discussion or JIRA discussion, rarely both. (but please keep the "^JENA-:" on PRs) Github: I don't know what's possible. My ideal is all PR traffic to pr@, and like JIRA, any created PRs notices go to dev@. (There aren't a GH issues for the Apache mirrored projects) Andy On 02/06/2019 13:57, ajs6f wrote: I like the idea of breaking PR discussions off, but if we're going to continue to copy PR comments onto Jira tickets it only makes sense if we have separate pr@ and issue@ lists. Also, we would have to stop copying them onto dev@ (which I would be fine with). Ideally, I would like to see ticket _creation_ cc:ed onto dev@, so that any interested parties would be aware without having to set up notifications in Jira, but other ticket actions not cc:ed. I'm not sure if that's possible with our gear, but I'm sure INFRA can tell us. ajs6f On May 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: The dev@ list can be dominated by github discussions. We have feeds from github PRs and JIRA. We could split the list in one list per feed to leave the dev@ list for people. While you can do this with mail client rules, searching using the archives isn't easy. Suggestion: Add email lists for: pr@ -- github pull request discussions. issues@ -- JIRA I'm not sure how clever we can be - for example, it would be nice for dev@ to get an email for the submission of a pull request, then not the discussion, but I don't think that is configurable. (It is all INFRa consifuration anyway AFAIK). These names are the ones I have seen other projects use. Thoughts? What have you seen work for other projects? Andy
