Robbie. I sent this message on feb-14. JB suggested commit list and I agreed with him. So I assumed consensus.
If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the Jira so this moves on. Thanks. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Clebert Suconic
