Just to point out the obvious: directing wiki/commit/issue logs to
separate lists in no way precludes having everything show up on the dev
list as well. We could have dev-svn@, dev-wiki@, dev-issues@, etc plus
dev-discuss@ and simply subscribe dev@ to each of those to obtain an
aggregate.
The only sticky point would be ensuring that replies on dev@ went to the
appropriate partial list, which should be solvable but would, of course,
require a little more help from infrastructure.
For that reason Ted's proposal, doing this 'after the fact' in the
forums, is probably the right short-term solution but I don't think
there's any technical reason Patrick's requirements can't be met.
L.
Greg Reddin wrote:
There are several things I've been thinking about as this discussion has
developed.
First, it is true with any craft, but especially with technology, that
we must always be willing to change when better ways come along.
Otherwise we stagnate and fade away. So if I would be more productive
using these other tools it would be wise for me to consider using them.
However, I can't imagine I would be more productive by having to open an
RSS reader to follow "the other stuff". As it is I glance at my email
several times a day and read what I can and delete the rest (similar to
James' approach). I would actually be *less* productive if that
involved opening up another reader. The end result is that I'd probably
not read the commits, wiki updates, and tickets. Then I would lose
track with what's going on and fade away.
I'm ok with multiple lists. I tend to subscribe once and stay
subscribed. I could potentially be subscribed from this email address
for the rest of my life :-) If that supports both ways, then cool.
You guys have made some good points about the WW merger being a merger
of communities not just code. To that end I think there should be
compromise on both sides to merge the communities and get them working
together. However I think one should expect movement on the ASF side to
be slower and more incremental because we're talking about the whole ASF
not just Struts. The other side of that coin is that I hope the WW
people will bring these new ideas to the table and eventually institute
change for the better. Just be aware that this is a slow-moving train.
That pace is one of the things I enjoy about the ASF. I can go away for
a while and when I come back things will likely be in a state where I
can jump back into familiar territory.
I, for one, will try to embrace the new ideas, but it will take a lot of
time. I'd much rather be working on Tiles than figuring out new ways of
keeping up with the discussions :-) +1 for the incremental approach Ted
(I think) proposed.
Greg
On Jan 17, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Wow, seems like there is a lot of push back on this topic. All I ask
Please respect that Jason and I (as well as the WebWork community)
come from a very well-established open source community and have a lot
of alternative experience in this area. We both have different
perspectives, but this merger is more than dumping code in the Struts
codebase. It is working with the teams too.
To Ted's specific points:
* I am very well aware the emails are a direct result of a peron's
action. To my original point: I don't care. I personally review the
wiki and bug tracker at a different time than when I check email.
* Jive Forums certainly can filter the email, and I may turn that on,
but then I've bypassed the team rather than working with them. I don't
like that approach at all.
To Sean's points:
* I am not proposing that we get rid of email lists. I am only
suggesting that there be ways to opt out of certain lists/types of
mail. Why is offering more options such a problem? I fail to see how
everything being list-based leads to the conclusion that "The result
is a single archive that is publicly searchable and contains all
relevant decisions (no matter how trivial) in one place." Why can't
there be multiple archives that can all be searched at once? We
provide that with WebWork by allowing users to search the WebWork
_category_, which includes the Dev, User, and CVS lists.
To James:
* I fully support that you work that way and am not suggesting your
workflow change at all. I 100% support complete email-based
communication. I only ask that some users such as myself be able to
opt out.
So, I'd like to propose something. Ted said:
Now, we could create a wiki@ mailing list and an issue@ mailing list,
to match the commit@ list, but now when people opt-in, they have to
opt into five lists instead of three. If we add a Roller blog to the
mix, then there would be six.
I offer two suggestions, either is perfectly fine with me. Any other
suggestions that provide more alternatives are also of course welcome:
1) Why not create a simple web-based form to manage all the lists. By
default, all 5, 6, or 7 lists are checked when the user clicks the
"subscribe" button, but each list can be independently subscribed and
unsubscribed. You can even set the Reply-To header for some of the
lists (bugs, wiki, etc) to point back to the dev@ list.
and/or
2) Using a Forums-based approach and different mailing lists for each
type of content (wiki@, dev@, bug@, etc), create a single Struts
category with several sub-forms that sync to the lists. Now users can
search the Struts category and get a unified archive.
Thoughts? I understand that this does involve some work, and for those
of you who are quite happy with how things are now, it may seem like a
waste of time. As such, I'm more than willing to do the actual work
for any proposed solution.
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=14616&messageID=29027#29027
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
