That is correct.
After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards dev list. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 git...@activemq.apache.org > > 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > 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 git...@activemq.apache.org > > > > > > 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 > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ok, so far the best choice is git...@activemq.apache.org > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell < > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019 18:53 (GMT+00:00) To: > > dev@activemq.apache.org 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > 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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>> 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> > < > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 -- Clebert Suconic
