I fear it's only human/dev nature to engage in meandering conversations no matter the channel, so I don't know whether a separate issues list will "work", but I agree it's worth a shot!
Mike On Jul 25, 2010, at 1:36 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, sounds good to me to have the additional lucy-issues@ lists per the > specification you mention below, Marvin... > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > On 7/24/10 10:16 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greets, > > Lucene sub-projects traditionally have all JIRA notifications sent to the dev > list. However, not all Apache projects follow this convention -- some have > dedicated "issues" lists. Although it was not in our proposal, I think Lucy > should consider requesting such a list. > > First, JIRA is noisy. There are too many messages, and though I generally try > to make sure that even the messages where I attach files contain meaningful > comments, most people on other lists (e.g. [email protected]) do not, resulting > in voluminous notification-only traffic to the dev list. Furthermore, lots of > people make trivial edits to their JIRA comments, resulting in heinous > pseuedo-diff messages containing the entire "before" and "after", no matter > how small the change. > > Second, meandering conversations in JIRA become commonplace when cc'd to the > dev list. This is bad because posters are not able to change the subject > line, > so the archives become harder to peruse and search. Important conversations > get buried in giganto JIRA threads -- e.g. > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458>, where per-segment search > was hashed out. Browsing conversations via Apache's enormous JIRA > installation > is a pain -- issues.apache.org is overloaded and slow, and the JIRA search > interface is not to everyone's liking. There are numerous mail archiving > services with interfaces to suit a variety of tastes (Markmail, Nabble, etc.) > -- these all function better when fed traditional email list posts than JIRA > notifications. > > My preference is to limit exchanges in JIRA to technical issues of applying > patches. All consensus building and discussion should take place on the dev > list, as Karl Fogel advocates: > > http://producingoss.com/en/bug-tracker-usage.html > > No Conversations in the Bug Tracker > > In any project that's making active use of its bug tracker, there is > always a danger of the tracker turning into a discussion forum itself, > even though the mailing lists would really be better. Usually it starts > off innocently enough: someone annotates an issue with, say, a proposed > solution, or a partial patch. Someone else sees this, realizes there are > problems with the solution, and attaches another annotation pointing out > the problems. The first person responds, again by appending to the > issue...and so it goes. > > ... > > There isn't one right answer, but there is a general principle: if you're > just adding data to an issue, then do it in the tracker, but if you're > starting a conversation, then do it on the mailing list. > > To this end, I propose the following: > > * Request a [email protected] list. > * Change all JIRA notifications to go to the lucy-issues list. > * Set followups on lucy-issues to go to lucy-dev. > > Marvin Humphrey > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >
