I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments are not always related to JIRA.
I would go with git...@activemq.apache.org @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to subscribe the appropriate list. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > 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. > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move > since mail filters work just fine. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that. > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > >> 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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > >>> 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 gitbox@activemq.a.o? > >>>> > >>>> Robbie > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > >>>> 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 < > >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 < > >>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> 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 < > >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 > >>>>>>>> <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 < > >>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> 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 < > >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019 22:39 (GMT+00:00) To: > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org 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 <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <opi...@redhat.com> > >>>> 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 <> > > > >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com>> > > 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 > >> > > -- > Tim Bish > -- Clebert Suconic
