+1 This change seems like it will make my life easier so I am in favor ;) On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 05/12/2019 14:12, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for > > discussions. > > > > Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote. > > Ping? > > > When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to, > > not some minority or rogue action. > > > > On 19/11/2019 19:55, aj...@apache.org wrote: > >> > >> Andy, you've given a nice list of potential discussions and others > >> have as > >> well. My meta-question is when do we want to switch to tickets for this > >> process? I don't want to smother discussion in process, but I find it > >> very > >> hard to follow a multithreaded discussion over email and I much prefer > >> breaking things out early to more specifics. > > > > Splitting the lists will make it easier. I think we switch to tickets > > when there specific activities. When sorting what the activities are, > > there is benefit in using dev@ so we can see the interactions more > > clearly. With a quieter dev@, sensible [] should mean anyone can see > the > > overall activity. We can change this if it does not work out. > > > > List proposal: > > > > 2 new lists: issues@ (for JIRA) and pr@ (for github traffic). > > > > Reply-to on JIRA becomes a comment (which I think it does at the moment > > - the reply is j...@apache.org) > > > > For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on > > GH so the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe > > archive. > > > > Using the same names as other projects helps infrequent visitors to > > navigate our lists. "issues" is a common name; there isn't a common name > > for the "pr" that I found - and it's not that common to split out GH. > > (Cassandra have pr@). > > > > If anyone wants to combine issues@and pr@ they can do so with their own > > mail filtering rules. > > > > Routing: > > > > JIRA: > > > > There are bunch of events: > > > > Issue Created > > Issue Updated > > Issue Assigned > > Issue Resolved > > Issue Closed > > Issue Commented > > Issue Comment Edited > > Issue Comment Deleted > > Issue Reopened > > Issue Deleted > > Issue Moved > > > > These are all: > > > > All Watchers > > Current Assignee > > Reporter > > Single Email Address (dev@jena.apache.org) > > > > I suggest that all go to issues@ and, in addition, "Created" goes to > dev@ > > > > I think PRs are linked to JIRA by the title JENA-NNNN. We don't need pr > > discussion on JIRA if we have pr@ but it probably isn't a big deal > > because either it's a PR discussion or JIRA discussion, rarely both. > > > > (but please keep the "^JENA-NNNN:" on PRs) > > > > Github: I don't know what's possible. > > > > My ideal is all PR traffic to pr@, and like JIRA, any created PRs > > notices go to dev@. > > > > (There aren't a GH issues for the Apache mirrored projects) > > > > Andy > > > > On 02/06/2019 13:57, ajs6f wrote: > >> I like the idea of breaking PR discussions off, but if we're going to > >> continue to copy PR comments onto Jira tickets it only makes sense if > >> we have separate pr@ and issue@ lists. Also, we would have to stop > >> copying them onto dev@ (which I would be fine with). > >> > >> Ideally, I would like to see ticket _creation_ cc:ed onto dev@, so > >> that any interested parties would be aware without having to set up > >> notifications in Jira, but other ticket actions not cc:ed. I'm not > >> sure if that's possible with our gear, but I'm sure INFRA can tell us. > >> > >> ajs6f > >> > >>> On May 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> The dev@ list can be dominated by github discussions. > >>> > >>> We have feeds from github PRs and JIRA. We could split the list in > >>> one list per feed to leave the dev@ list for people. > >>> > >>> While you can do this with mail client rules, searching using the > >>> archives isn't easy. > >>> > >>> Suggestion: > >>> Add email lists for: > >>> > >>> pr@ -- github pull request discussions. > >>> issues@ -- JIRA > >>> > >>> I'm not sure how clever we can be - for example, it would be nice for > >>> dev@ to get an email for the submission of a pull request, then not > >>> the discussion, but I don't think that is configurable. (It is all > >>> INFRa consifuration anyway AFAIK). > >>> > >>> These names are the ones I have seen other projects use. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> What have you seen work for other projects? > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >> > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
