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?


> 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

Reply via email to