If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a simple task. I did not think it would be a big deal. Those > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I > don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list. > > I updated the JiRA accordingly. I think the name is sensible enough. > > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the > JIRA. If not please let Me know. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest >> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested >> email address of [email protected]? >> >> Robbie >> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been >> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the >> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed >> > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org? >> > >> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem >> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists. >> > >> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be >> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus >> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update >> > things to use it. >> > >> > Robbie >> > >> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list >> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there) >> > > >> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear >> period >> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it. >> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but >> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as >> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion >> suggests >> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the >> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly >> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was >> the >> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only >> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread. >> > > > >> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs >> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the >> JIRA >> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say >> that >> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new >> > > > list. >> > > > >> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we >> should >> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra >> to >> > > > hold off moving things while we do so. >> > > > >> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine >> where >> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies >> in >> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into >> the >> > > > same place they were going originally. >> > > > >> > > > Robbie >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox >> > > > > messages to the commit message. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic >> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong. I can do with filters personally. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining >> in. Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just >> joining) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What about this. We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages >> to a new list. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, >> and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will >> all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. >> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic < >> [email protected]> Date: 15/02/2019 22:39 (GMT+00:00) To: >> [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages >> on a separate list The thing is. I can do fine with filtering. So in a >> way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting >> myself in the shoes of someone coming on board now. Justtrying to make it >> easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon < >> [email protected]> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either >> way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either >> addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now >> obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my >> gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label >> and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue. I imagine >> most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at >> 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote:>> > People >> are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, >> Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <[email protected]> wrote:> >> > > >> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> >> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github >> messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant >> cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects >> that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb >> 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > [email protected]>> >> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis. We had >> some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided >> to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters. Etc.> > > >> >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source devs.> > > >> >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> >> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to >> follow. So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate >> list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and >> important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural >> decisions. Releases. And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the >> clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Clebert Suconic >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Clebert Suconic >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Clebert Suconic >> > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
