>>> 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.
GH notifications include the ability to reply via email to put a remark in the conversation. How will that work with this? IMO, that is important functionality that we can't throw away. Anything that prevents the duplication of messages is good. Right now any comment on a PR creates at least three email messages in my inbox, all of which are duplicated and of which, only one is formatted usefully. First the useful message direct from GH, then a duplicate via copying onto dev@ (I realize it's for the record-- that doesn't make it useful or any less annoying), then one or more replications from Jira. So to the extent that we get any improvement on that from splitting out lists, great. I wouldn't subscribe to a pr@ list. GH's native service for that kind of communication is much better than any email list. But if keeping a separate list allows us to keep GH traffic off the main dev@ list and out of Jira, I'm +1 to that. Duplicating all PR comments onto the Jira issues has made Jira almost unusable for me. I can't page through screen after screen of nested email and GH quotes duplicating each other. On another note, the question I was asking was about how to organize the API discussion. This proposal, while interesting in its own right, wouldn't do anything to address my concern. Filtering via [] subject components is a valuable and powerful technique, but it doesn't actually connect the thread to work proposed and it's difficult for many people. I'd rather start tickets for API ideas, but I'm willing to try something else, i.e. more list-based conversation for some further period. ajs6f
