> In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are basically > forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
This is why I proposed we send a link to the design lira’s to the dev list. > Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but realize, > there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching I don’t see how a JIRA dedicated to a specific issue is “high noise” ? That single JIRA is much lower noise, it only has conversations around that specific ticket. All conversations happening on the dev list at once seems much “higher noise” to me. -Jeremiah > On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > > Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but > realize, > there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching > the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you > are basically > forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA. > > > > > > On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@apache.org> wrote: > > I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on > the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs. > > You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and > then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about. > > -- > AY > > On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan > (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: > > I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one place, and > it is easy to refer someone to it in the future. > But I agree that JIRA tickets with a bunch of design discussion and POC’s > and such in them can get pretty long and convoluted. > > I don’t really like the idea of moving all of that discussion to email > which makes it has harder to point someone to it. Maybe a better idea would > be to have a “design/POC” JIRA and an “implementation” JIRA. That way we > could still keep things in JIRA, but the final decision would be kept > “clean”. > > Though it would be nice if people would send an email to the dev list when > proposing “design” JIRA’s, as not everyone has time to follow every JIRA ever > made to see that a new design JIRA was created that they might be interested > in participating on. > > My 2c. > > -Jeremiah > > >> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development discussions >> on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless nature >> helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked. >> >> But Cassandra was a lot smaller then, and as we've grown it has become >> necessary to separate out the signal (discussions of new features and major >> changes) from the noise of routine bug reports. >> >> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that >> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be >> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved to >> Jira for implementation and review. >> >> I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea proves >> to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much >> discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion was, as >> review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that discussion on the >> list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this. >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> @spyced > > > >
