On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 15:15 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote: > ... > So, rather than renaming the lists can we just mentally perform the > translation that this list should actually be considered "issues@ " and the > other list should be considered to be "discuss@ " without actually renaming > and screwing up everyone's subscriptions?
Unfortunately I don't think so. Names are important. For anyone new coming to the project they will see the mailing lists and make assumptions based on the names. If we are determined to go along these lines (and in effect it seems we actually are) we need to make it prominent on the qpid website that user@ is for all discussion and dev@ is high volume for automated emails from jira and jenkins. > > Anything that isn't JIRA / review request / code review comment should go > to the other list (obviously this discussion itself should have been held > on the other list :-) ) Actually I think that review is in the usual category of discussion about the software, and it's not especially high volume. IMO Only JIRAs and CI results should be separated out - ie high volume boring stuff. I'm curious though why having to resubscribe to a single mailing list would qualify as "screwing up" though. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
