Since I am the only one with a scratch to itch :-), it's clear the status quo is acceptable. Thanks for taking your time with my idea!
Cheers, Paul On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I have separate Jira mailboxes for most of the projects I am involved in - > although I don’t for Log4j for some reason. To be honest I don’t know which > have a separate Jira email or not as I use a filter to route it to the > appropriate mailbox (or delete it if I really don’t care). As such I > really don’t care either way. > > Ralph > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > I could use email filters, yes, but filters help categorize mail. I don't > want to categorize JIRA emails. I just don't want them. I think having a > different list is better to separate out ticket churn vs. discussion. Other > Apache projects have done this so I think it's beneficial here too. > > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The fewer lists the better IMO. That's what email client rules/filters >> are for, no? >> >> Gary >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Committers, >>> >>> I like subscribing to different mailing lists for JIRA notifications vs. >>> development discussions. Most Apache lists have an "issues" list dedicated >>> to ticket updates. That's not the case for LOG4J so it can get quite noisy >>> when JIRA heats up. >>> >>> What are your thoughts? Do you think we should split these two concerns >>> into separate lists? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > > >
