Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Jacob Barrett]

I am fine with the initial request coming to the dev list but not every
update. I would have been just as happy if we had changed JIRA to just
notify about new tickets and left followups with watchers only. I believe
the same behavior can be achieved with PR and Reviews (although we could
just stop using review board).

-Jake

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:39 AM Dan Smith  wrote:

> The JIRA noise has gone away, which is awesome! Do we want to move github
> PRs and review requests off this list as well or keep sending them to the
> list?
>
> -Dan
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
>
> > Fixed!  Please check iss...@geode.apache.org for JIRA updates.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> > >
> > > There is an iss...@geode.apache.org mailing list but it seems to have
> > been misconfigured last December.  All the JIRA traffic got shunted over
> to
> > dev@.
> > >
> > > I filed a ticket to fix this:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14266
> > >
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi devs,
> > >>
> > >> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> > >> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API
> > that
> > >> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> > >> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for
> > partitioning).
> > >>
> > >> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS]
> in
> > >> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> > >> dependencies. Or wiki
> > >>  > Criteria+for+Code+Submissions>
> > >> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify
> > how.
> > >>
> > >> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the
> > amount
> > >> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough
> > for me
> > >> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> > >> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> > >> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human -
> > JIRAs,
> > >> PRs, and reviewboards.
> > >>
> > >> -Dan
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Dan Smith]

The JIRA noise has gone away, which is awesome! Do we want to move github
PRs and review requests off this list as well or keep sending them to the
list?

-Dan

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:

> Fixed!  Please check iss...@geode.apache.org for JIRA updates.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> >
> > There is an iss...@geode.apache.org mailing list but it seems to have
> been misconfigured last December.  All the JIRA traffic got shunted over to
> dev@.
> >
> > I filed a ticket to fix this:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14266
> >
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi devs,
> >>
> >> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> >> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API
> that
> >> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> >> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for
> partitioning).
> >>
> >> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> >> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> >> dependencies. Or wiki
> >>  Criteria+for+Code+Submissions>
> >> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify
> how.
> >>
> >> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the
> amount
> >> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough
> for me
> >> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> >> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> >> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human -
> JIRAs,
> >> PRs, and reviewboards.
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Anthony Baker]

Fixed!  Please check iss...@geode.apache.org for JIRA updates.

Anthony

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> 
> There is an iss...@geode.apache.org mailing list but it seems to have been 
> misconfigured last December.  All the JIRA traffic got shunted over to dev@.
> 
> I filed a ticket to fix this: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14266
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi devs,
>> 
>> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
>> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API that
>> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
>> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for partitioning).
>> 
>> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
>> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
>> dependencies. Or wiki
>> 
>> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
>> 
>> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
>> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for me
>> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
>> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
>> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human - JIRAs,
>> PRs, and reviewboards.
>> 
>> -Dan
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Anthony Baker]

There is an iss...@geode.apache.org mailing list but it seems to have been 
misconfigured last December.  All the JIRA traffic got shunted over to dev@.

I filed a ticket to fix this: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14266


Anthony

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
> Hi devs,
> 
> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API that
> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for partitioning).
> 
> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> dependencies. Or wiki
> 
> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
> 
> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for me
> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human - JIRAs,
> PRs, and reviewboards.
> 
> -Dan

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Michael Stolz]

+1 to initiating a [DISCUSS] thread on dev list for any proposed changes to
the public API(s).

--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Kirk Lund  wrote:

> +1 to initiating a [DISCUSS] thread on dev list for any proposed changes to
> the public API(s).
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> > changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API
> that
> > I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> > GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for
> partitioning).
> >
> > I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> > the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> > dependencies. Or wiki
> >  > Criteria+for+Code+Submissions>
> > says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
> >
> > Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> > of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for
> me
> > to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> > automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> > list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human -
> JIRAs,
> > PRs, and reviewboards.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Kirk Lund]

+1 to initiating a [DISCUSS] thread on dev list for any proposed changes to
the public API(s).

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API that
> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for partitioning).
>
> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> dependencies. Or wiki
>  Criteria+for+Code+Submissions>
> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
>
> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for me
> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human - JIRAs,
> PRs, and reviewboards.
>
> -Dan
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Michael Stolz]

I would love to have the automated JIRA e-mails put somewhere separate.
I am becoming swamped by them but I don't want to miss important
discussions.

--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to using "[DISCUSS]" in subject lines for this. Great idea, Dan.
>
> +1 also to segregating automated JIRA activity to its own list. (If we do
> that, let's remember to add it to the Community web page.)
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:09 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> > changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API
> that
> > I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> > GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for
> partitioning).
> >
> > I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> > the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> > dependencies. Or wiki
> > <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> Criteria+for+Code+Submissions
> > >
> > says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
> >
> > Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> > of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for
> me
> > to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> > automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> > list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human -
> JIRAs,
> > PRs, and reviewboards.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[John Blum]

+1!

Very good/helpful ideas, Dan.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to using "[DISCUSS]" in subject lines for this. Great idea, Dan.
>
> +1 also to segregating automated JIRA activity to its own list. (If we do
> that, let's remember to add it to the Community web page.)
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:09 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> > changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API
> that
> > I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> > GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for
> partitioning).
> >
> > I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> > the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> > dependencies. Or wiki
> > <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> Criteria+for+Code+Submissions
> > >
> > says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
> >
> > Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> > of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for
> me
> > to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> > automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> > list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human -
> JIRAs,
> > PRs, and reviewboards.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>



-- 
-John
john.blum10101 (skype)

Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Joey McAllister]

+1 to using "[DISCUSS]" in subject lines for this. Great idea, Dan.

+1 also to segregating automated JIRA activity to its own list. (If we do
that, let's remember to add it to the Community web page.)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:09 PM Dan Smith  wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
> changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API that
> I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
> GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for partitioning).
>
> I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
> the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
> dependencies. Or wiki
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Criteria+for+Code+Submissions
> >
> says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.
>
> Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
> of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for me
> to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
> automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
> list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human - JIRAs,
> PRs, and reviewboards.
>
> -Dan
>

[DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise

[Dan Smith]

Hi devs,

This is similar to the discussion John started about keeping track of
changes to geode. I'm seeing some changes happening to the public API that
I feel like maybe should have a more visible discussion. For example
GEODE-2892 (Region.sizeOnServer) or GEODE-3005 (new API for partitioning).

I think we should have a clear policy to send an email with [DISCUSS] in
the header to mailing list for changes to the public API, behavior, or
dependencies. Or wiki

says that changes should be discussed, but it doesn't really specify how.

Part of the issue is that I find it impossible to keep up with the amount
of JIRA noise on the dev list, so just creating a JIRA is not enough for me
to notice a new API change. I propose that we segregate all of this
automated email onto a separate list, either geode-commits or some new
list. I'd like to segregate anything not directly sent by a human - JIRAs,
PRs, and reviewboards.

-Dan