We wont know until we try. Perhaps that's why an experiment would be a good idea?
I still expect committers to subscribe to commits@. But if a non-committer is interested (i.e. might've commented) they are free to subscribe too. And yes, I hear you about mail filters. But not everybody does use them, or wants to use them. And really, we should be doing everything we can to make the lists an easy place to be. On 5 February 2014 00:50, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for a bit offtopic start, but looking on all these talks about > ML I wonder why people don't use mail filters in their clients? This > is the awesome way to organize email by topics in the way you liked > and don't care about from which address it arrived. Adv. off (: > > While I feel that idea is good and rationale, I think that moving JIRA > / wiki / github bits to commits@ will tend people (especially, who > didn't organize his mail box) to ignore them even more since every > feature branch rebase or large stuff merge generates a lot of emails > that people will not read, but just archive or ever drop. Such massive > spam rarely arrives from GitHub or I hope Review Board. As for JIRA it > was only happened during clean up procedures. Also, having JIRA / > Reviews requests in dev@ may attract other people (who have no need to > read and review every our commit) to take a look on them and even > contribute idea, thoughts or even some work on. > > -- > ,,,^..^,,, > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> I know there are some people who really struggle with the workload of >> dev@, who would be interested in general project discussion, but feel >> swamped by JIRA, etc. >> >> I think if there's a chance that we can gain even one more person >> because dev@ is easier to cope with (and assuming no significant >> downsides) then it's a worthwhile change. >> >> If there's a particularly interesting thread in a JIRA that we want to >> make sure everyone sees, it should be easy enough to just link to it >> from dev@. >> >> I would say though, with my PMC hat on: I expect all committers to be >> subscribed to commits@. (Today, as in, right now. Irrespective of this >> change.) I don't see how a committer can do their job without it. >> >> On 4 February 2014 22:40, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Tricky. I'm fine with trying it out, but I do wonder how many casual >>> followers of dev@ would miss the really interesting technical conversations >>> that sometime happen on code reviews and (especially) JIRA tickets. Not an >>> easy thing to measure. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> We should have some success/failure criteria? >>>> >>>> Success: >>>> >>>> - Conversion continued to happen around JIRA >>>> - PRs were not ignored (any more so than they already are) >>>> - Review Board threads were not ignored >>>> >>>> Failure: >>>> >>>> - Participation/review frequency dropped noticeably >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 February 2014 09:37, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> Not presupposing the answer here. But perhaps we could run an experiment? >>>>> >>>>> You mean, trying it out for a few weeks? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Noah Slater >>>> https://twitter.com/nslater >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
