I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through the comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or otherwise without any -1s) to carry out the following:
1) Create a new mailing list, and 2) The new mailing list should be named [email protected] This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages. Please confirm or deny my understanding. Bruce On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair. > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on https://infra.apache.org/mail.html > > named [email protected] > > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox, > for that. > > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I > believe I will need infra to help on that. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, so far the best choice is [email protected] > > > > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for > objections. > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell < > [email protected]> Date: 22/02/2019 18:53 (GMT+00:00) To: > [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri, > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose. If you > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>> wrote:>> > I'm not > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes) > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@ > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
