Re: [vdsm] Getting rid of a...@ovirt.org?
On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote: On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: - Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: Hi all, Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about engine side but would still like to know about such changes). Thoughts? - -1 I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't noticed that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening here. I'm probably not the only person in that situation. If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation and infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we can reach *all* contributors to this project. If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so I filter it) or people would drop it all together. Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on arch@ and announce@ as a minimum? I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and vdsm-devel. However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch is on engine). So imo something needs to be done. I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for generally ovirt development? we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists. wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to subscribe to it as well. (for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] Getting rid of a...@ovirt.org?
On 07/16/2012 10:55 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: On 16/07/12 10:01, Itamar Heim wrote: On 07/16/2012 09:56 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: On 16/07/12 09:41, Itamar Heim wrote: On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote: On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: - Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: Hi all, Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about engine side but would still like to know about such changes). Thoughts? - -1 I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't noticed that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening here. I'm probably not the only person in that situation. If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation and infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we can reach *all* contributors to this project. If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so I filter it) or people would drop it all together. Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on arch@ and announce@ as a minimum? I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and vdsm-devel. However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch is on engine). So imo something needs to be done. I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for generally ovirt development? we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists. What would happen if someone reply on the engine-list to a mail originally sent to arch? wouldn't we end-up starting a thread on arch and then loosing it to one of the other lists? reply-to is not set to reply-to-list, rather to original sender/cc list, so shouldn't be an issue ok so if reply to such mail de-facto I'll send a mail to the arch list - shouldn't I be register to the arch list (or I need someone to approve the mail)? you would be moderated the first time you reply to it, yes. same as for all other mailing lists - not an issue usually. wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to subscribe to it as well. (for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc. ___ Arch mailing list a...@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] Getting rid of a...@ovirt.org?
- Original Message - On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 04:53:04AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote: Hi all, Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about engine side but would still like to know about such changes). +1 to ditching arch. I would still prefer that cross-component features cross-post to vdsm-devel and engine-devel. My current focus is on vdsm and the traffic level on that list is currently far more manageable than that of engine-devel. That's my sentiment as well (plus I have a rule to drop duplicates so I don't care much about it ;) -- Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com IBM Linux Technology Center ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] Getting rid of a...@ovirt.org?
On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: - Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: Hi all, Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about engine side but would still like to know about such changes). Thoughts? - -1 I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't noticed that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening here. I'm probably not the only person in that situation. If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation and infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we can reach *all* contributors to this project. If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so I filter it) or people would drop it all together. Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on arch@ and announce@ as a minimum? I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and vdsm-devel. However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch is on engine). So imo something needs to be done. I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for generally ovirt development? Thanks Robert I'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= =iBdY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list engine-de...@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
