Hi
I agree Henry's proposal.
Issue Created, send mails to dev@mailing list
Issue Created and all other JIRA events send mails to new mailing list at
issues@mailing list.
Regards
Liang
--
View this message in context:
Option2:+1
在 2016/8/18 15:57, Liang Big data 写道:
Hi all
Please discuss and vote, do you think what kind of JIRA issue events need
send mails to dev@carbondata.incubator.apache.org?
Option1: None, all JIRA issue events don't need send any mails to
dev@carbondata.incubator.apache.org, users
Hi all
Please discuss and vote, do you think what kind of JIRA issue events need
send mails to dev@carbondata.incubator.apache.org?
Option1: None, all JIRA issue events don't need send any mails to
dev@carbondata.incubator.apache.org, users can directly go to apache jira
to check issues'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CARBONDATA-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15425989#comment-15425989
]
Venkata Ramana G commented on CARBONDATA-63:
It is already detailed in
Any of this is fine with me.
Option 2.1: Issue Created and Issue Commented,+ issue resolved.
+ stop PR comment updating Jira comment.
Option 4: Send them to another mailing list dev-notification
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ravindra Pesala
wrote:
> +1
Option2, better add Issue closed event
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-carbondata-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/Open-discussion-and-Vote-What-kind-of-JIRA-issue-events-need-send-mail-to-dev-carbondata-incubator-ag-tp321p325.html
Sent from the Apache CarbonData
How about modification of Option 2:
Issue Created, send mails to dev@carbondata.incubator.apache.org
Issue Created and all other JIRA events send mails to new mailing list at
iss...@carbondata.incubator.apache.org
- Henry
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Liang Big data
Hi Henry,
This change sounds good to me.
Make sense to have issues@. Lot of other projects have that as well.
+1 for option 2, considering above changes
Regards,
Uma
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Henry Saputra
wrote:
> How about modification of Option 2:
>
>