So as i said im +0 for it to be a new list as you had originally proposed.Sent
from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> Date: 21/02/2019 20:28 (GMT+00:00) To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a
separate list What's why I suggested a separate list.It would give people
freedom on how they want to see these messagesand would still favor non
committers looking for discussions on thedev list.I'm insisting on this to help
outsiders (non committers)... and I onlystarted doing that after I talked to a
few non committers who thoughtour list was too cluttered.So, please.. when you
think about this please think of those noncommitters looking at our list.On
Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM
michael.andre.pearce<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> Date: 21/02/2019 17:49 (GMT+00:00) To:
[email protected] 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 [email protected], 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<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Date: 21/02/2019
16:05 (GMT+00:00) To: [email protected] 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
[email protected] Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie
Gemmell<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its
own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I
would go with [email protected]> >> >> > @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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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> > > >>> > >> >
> --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic--
Clebert Suconic
