On 19 January 2015 at 11:28, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi Bernd
>
> 2015-01-18 18:49 GMT+01:00 Bernd Eckenfels :
>
>> Hello Ben,
>>
>> I was actually looking for this switch before. After releasing VFS
>> there would be a few hundred closed bugs, so it comes in handy.
>>
>> However I dont see a bul
Hi Bernd
2015-01-18 18:49 GMT+01:00 Bernd Eckenfels :
> Hello Ben,
>
> I was actually looking for this switch before. After releasing VFS
> there would be a few hundred closed bugs, so it comes in handy.
>
> However I dont see a bulk operation interface. It is supposed to be
> under "Tools" and r
Hello Ben,
I was actually looking for this switch before. After releasing VFS
there would be a few hundred closed bugs, so it comes in handy.
However I dont see a bulk operation interface. It is supposed to be
under "Tools" and requires a global "Bulk" permission. But I dont see a
tools menu. Or
On 1/17/15 3:36 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 17/01/2015 23:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Sorry for the hijack; but I agree this is noise that would be nice
>> to suppress.
> +1
>
> I suggest to leave the bugs fixed and avoid closing them, that's useless.
I disagree, but it may be a matter of pe
2015-01-17 23:36 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Bourg :
> Le 17/01/2015 23:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
> > Sorry for the hijack; but I agree this is noise that would be nice
> > to suppress.
>
> +1
>
> I suggest to leave the bugs fixed and avoid closing them, that's useless.
>
When you do bulk operations in
2015-01-16 17:21 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann :
> I find the whole I idea of a mailing list very 1990s.
+1
I've heard that from people several times...
> I'd much prefer
> something like Google Groups where I can set my notification preferences
> easily to send me updates only on certain threads such
Le 17/01/2015 23:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Sorry for the hijack; but I agree this is noise that would be nice
> to suppress.
+1
I suggest to leave the bugs fixed and avoid closing them, that's useless.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
To u
On 17 January 2015 at 22:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/17/15 3:11 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 17 January 2015 at 16:29, Mark Fortner wrote:
>>> Bulk JIRA changes prior to a release tend to swamp the list. Perhaps it
>>> would be better to close the issue as the work is done.
>> The convention is to res
On 1/17/15 3:11 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 January 2015 at 16:29, Mark Fortner wrote:
>> Bulk JIRA changes prior to a release tend to swamp the list. Perhaps it
>> would be better to close the issue as the work is done.
> The convention is to resolve the issue when the work is done and close
> the is
On 17 January 2015 at 16:29, Mark Fortner wrote:
> Bulk JIRA changes prior to a release tend to swamp the list. Perhaps it
> would be better to close the issue as the work is done.
The convention is to resolve the issue when the work is done and close
the issues after the release.
When bulk clos
On 01/17/2015 01:16 PM, Duncan Jones wrote:
On 17 January 2015 at 16:59, Ole Ersoy wrote:
GIlles,
Well said as always.
With respect to the goal of growing the community, I think everyone agrees
that that's a good goal.
So if we pick tools that developers are most likely to be used to, then t
On 17 January 2015 at 16:59, Ole Ersoy wrote:
> GIlles,
>
> Well said as always.
>
> With respect to the goal of growing the community, I think everyone agrees
> that that's a good goal.
> So if we pick tools that developers are most likely to be used to, then they
> are more likely to join.
>
> T
GIlles,
Well said as always.
With respect to the goal of growing the community, I think everyone agrees that
that's a good goal.
So if we pick tools that developers are most likely to be used to, then they
are more likely to join.
The number of open source projects is growing everyday, and mo
Bulk JIRA changes prior to a release tend to swamp the list. Perhaps it
would be better to close the issue as the work is done.
Mark
On Jan 17, 2015 8:11 AM, "Gilles" wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:36:55 +0100, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:00:34 +, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Janu
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:36:55 +0100, Gilles wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:00:34 +, sebb wrote:
On 17 January 2015 at 14:23, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
simpler click watch on github and g
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:00:34 +, sebb wrote:
On 17 January 2015 at 14:23, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
simpler click watch on github and get notifications. Also
stackoverflow has a much br
On 17 January 2015 at 14:23, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
>>
>> I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
>> simpler click watch on github and get notifications. Also
>> stackoverflow has a much broader Java community and having traffic
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:50:59 +0100, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 16.01.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Duncan Jones:
On 16 January 2015 at 14:54, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Concerning [Math], when the possibility was raised, the majority
thought that development within Commons had practical advantages
(through shar
Well put!!
On Saturday, January 17, 2015, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
>
>> I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
>> simpler click watch on github and get notifications. Also
>> stackoverflow has a much broader Java community and
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:58:42 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 16/01/2015 21:17, Gilles a écrit :
Between 2014-10-21 and now, the count of messages addressed to one
of the
"commons" lists is 4387, that is an average of about 50 per day
(1500 per
month).
How did you get that number?
It's the
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
simpler click watch on github and get notifications. Also
stackoverflow has a much broader Java community and having traffic go
through it could benefit this community.
I'm afrai
I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much simpler click
watch on github and get notifications. Also stackoverflow has a much broader
Java community and having traffic go through it could benefit this community.
Ole
On 01/16/2015 10:21 AM, Ben McCann wrote:
I find the who
Le 16/01/2015 21:17, Gilles a écrit :
> Between 2014-10-21 and now, the count of messages addressed to one of the
> "commons" lists is 4387, that is an average of about 50 per day (1500 per
> month).
How did you get that number? I got 400 by averaging the messages per
month displayed on the mail
Am 16.01.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Duncan Jones:
> On 16 January 2015 at 14:54, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Concerning [Math], when the possibility was raised, the majority
>>> thought that development within Commons had practical advantages
>>> (through shared burden of the development environment).
>
Or, they could move to TLP.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'm not sure what infra will say about managing multiple dev lists for one
> project, but we can ask.
>
> I would suggest that if a project wants its own dev list, a VOTE be called.
> Commons is still _one_ project
I'm not sure what infra will say about managing multiple dev lists for one
project, but we can ask.
I would suggest that if a project wants its own dev list, a VOTE be called.
Commons is still _one_ project, so all Commons PMC committers votes should
count, not just folks involved in that single p
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:58:12 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/16/15 5:05 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining
the
project that's indeed an issue.
Two or three people said so.
We had an average of 400 messages per
On 1/16/15 5:05 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining the
>> project that's indeed an issue. We had an average of 400 messages per
>> month in 2014, that's on par with maven-dev, half of tomcat-dev and 1/7
>> of luc
Le 16/01/2015 17:25, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
> Sorry - I am done with this thread.
err... wait ! We haven't talked about logging and line length yet ;)
Emmanuel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For
>> Then let's ask the next question: Why be a Commons project?
>
> I gave one answer a few posts ago (several times).
Guess I missed that in all that traffic :-p
Sorry - I am done with this thread.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-
I find the whole I idea of a mailing list very 1990s. I'd much prefer
something like Google Groups where I can set my notification preferences
easily to send me updates only on certain threads such as threads I've
started, which has a nice easily browsable and searchable web interface,
and where I
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:56:30 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
I would be in favour of total segregation, even including issues and
commits, but I appreciate the latter two might be challenging to
implement.
Then let's ask the next question: Why be a Commons project?
I gave one answer a few posts a
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:52:36 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Was it mentioned that anybody would be forbidden to subscribe to any
ML they see fit?
You missed my point - but never mind.
What was it?
Judging from your comments below, you completely missed mine.
That comparison is pretty flawe
> I would be in favour of total segregation, even including issues and
> commits, but I appreciate the latter two might be challenging to
> implement.
Then let's ask the next question: Why be a Commons project?
-
To unsubscribe,
> Was it mentioned that anybody would be forbidden to subscribe to any
> ML they see fit?
You missed my point - but never mind.
>> That comparison is pretty flawed as those projects are not tiny
>> components.
>
>
> I'm not talking about the size of components, but the size of the
> ML traffic.
While I am part of the [RDF] community - I would be careful about
sub-lists with "too few people" (e.g. <3).
As you said, voting on releases (and other PMC-level votes) should be
kept on the all-dev - formally then the sublist should not be a worry
- you wouldn't make a mailing list for two people
On 16 January 2015 at 14:54, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Concerning [Math], when the possibility was raised, the majority
>> thought that development within Commons had practical advantages
>> (through shared burden of the development environment).
>>
>> I'm stating again the fact that nobody is invol
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:54:40 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Concerning [Math], when the possibility was raised, the majority
thought that development within Commons had practical advantages
(through shared burden of the development environment).
I'm stating again the fact that nobody is involved in
> Concerning [Math], when the possibility was raised, the majority
> thought that development within Commons had practical advantages
> (through shared burden of the development environment).
>
> I'm stating again the fact that nobody is involved in a "Commons"
> project programming-wise; hence it
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:36:27 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 16/01/2015 11:18, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:40:18 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Gilles,
2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
Hi.
In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems
On 16/01/2015 11:18, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:40:18 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>
>>> 2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
>>>
Hi.
In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
traffic volume
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining the
> project that's indeed an issue. We had an average of 400 messages per
> month in 2014, that's on par with maven-dev, half of tomcat-dev and 1/7
> of lucene-dev.
>
> I don't think splitting the list b
I'd say the problem is probably that you have too little mailing list
traffic incoming. Subscribe to a few more and you /will/ have to start
making inbox rules :)
Kristian (Who had the dubious honor of receiving more email than the
rest of my company altogether last year - 20 people)
lopers List
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:47 PM
>Subject: [ALL] Too much traffic on the "dev" ML
>
>
>Hi.
>
>In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
>traffic volume is a stumbling block.
>[For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance,
On 16 January 2015 at 11:21, sebb wrote:
> On 16 January 2015 at 11:16, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 16/01/2015 12:03, sebb a écrit :
>>
>>> Commits already have a separate list.
>>
>> Ah thanks, I thought they were merged. Maybe we could move the Wiki
>> notifications to the commits or notificati
On 16 January 2015 at 11:13, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:53:56 +0100, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> 2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
>>> traffic volume is a stumbling block.
>>> [For some ti
On 16 January 2015 at 11:16, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 16/01/2015 12:03, sebb a écrit :
>
>> Commits already have a separate list.
>
> Ah thanks, I thought they were merged. Maybe we could move the Wiki
> notifications to the commits or notification lists, as well as the
> jenkins/continuum/gump
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:40:18 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Gilles,
2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
Hi.
In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
traffic volume is a stumbling block.
[For some time now, it has been a growing nuis
Le 16/01/2015 12:03, sebb a écrit :
> Commits already have a separate list.
Ah thanks, I thought they were merged. Maybe we could move the Wiki
notifications to the commits or notification lists, as well as the
jenkins/continuum/gump messages.
Emmanuel Bourg
---
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:53:56 +0100, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Gilles,
2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
Hi.
In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
traffic volume is a stumbling block.
[For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the
usual dismissal about filte
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:49:14 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining
the
project that's indeed an issue. We had an average of 400 messages per
month in 2014, that's on par with maven-dev, half of tomcat-dev and
1/7
of lucene-dev.
I don'
On 16 January 2015 at 10:49, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining the
> project that's indeed an issue. We had an average of 400 messages per
> month in 2014, that's on par with maven-dev, half of tomcat-dev and 1/7
> of lucene-dev.
>
> I don'
If the volume of messages discourages new contributors from joining the
project that's indeed an issue. We had an average of 400 messages per
month in 2014, that's on par with maven-dev, half of tomcat-dev and 1/7
of lucene-dev.
I don't think splitting the list by component is a good idea though,
On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> 2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
>> traffic volume is a stumbling block.
>> [For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the
>> usual dismissal abou
Hi Gilles,
2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
> Hi.
>
> In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
> traffic volume is a stumbling block.
> [For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the
> usual dismissal about filters won't change the fact: Setting
> up a filter tha
Hi.
In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the
traffic volume is a stumbling block.
[For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the
usual dismissal about filters won't change the fact: Setting
up a filter that will redirect stuff to /dev/null is a waste
of bandwidth.]
56 matches
Mail list logo
