What's why I suggested a separate list. It would give people freedom on how they want to see these messages and would still favor non committers looking for discussions on the dev list.
I'm insisting on this to help outsiders (non committers)... and I only started doing that after I talked to a few non committers who thought our list was too cluttered. So, please.. when you think about this please think of those non committers looking at our list. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM michael.andre.pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019 17:49 (GMT+00:00) To: > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a > separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that > peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related > PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic > to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct > fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,and > its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highlyrelated issue > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated withthe same PR comments > in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany folks receiving issues@ > traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the dev@ traffic and already > handling both just how theywant, such that they wont really care about > receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing > filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, > and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be botheredby > the move.All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually > nottoo bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)so > long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chipin about it, > as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb > 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce<michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> > wrote:>> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id > actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing > list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same > arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g. what if > i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i > dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung > Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019 16:05 (GMT+00:00) To: > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a > separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to > cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process > here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're > moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I > suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie > Gemmell<robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think > the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they > arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the > underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. > Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will > also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as > worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a > change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on > commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > 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-- Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
