Ok, we can see how it goes.
I'll kick off the VOTE for the minimal proposal in a moment.
Andy
On 13/12/2019 15:32, ajs6f wrote:
I'm +1 to splitting off pr@, -0 to splitting off issues@. I don't see that the
gain is worth creating another list, managing more subscriptions, missing
I'm +1 to splitting off pr@, -0 to splitting off issues@. I don't see that the
gain is worth creating another list, managing more subscriptions, missing
replies when they go to the wrong list, etc., but if other folks would like to
try it, I'm not -1 against it.
ajs6f
> On Dec 13, 2019, at
Adam - where are we on this?
My understanding is that the difference in the discussion is around how
JIRA is handled after we direct all GH traffic to pr@.
Either we leave JIRA emails coming to dev@ or we direct them to a new
issues@.
Even with GH not causing additional JIRA ticket
On 09/12/2019 20:51, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:26, ajs6f wrote:
I'm not sure why I would want to use a clunky and less-functional (no
reply-to to comment on PR, non-formatting-aware) email list instead of
the more powerful_and_ more pleasant GH system.
No one is asking you
On 09/12/2019 16:26, ajs6f wrote:
I'm not sure why I would want to use a clunky and less-functional (no reply-to
to comment on PR, non-formatting-aware) email list instead of the more
powerful_and_ more pleasant GH system.
No one is asking you to.
It is not either-or.
GH tools remain
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> The important point is a less-busy dev@.
Well, I want the right discussion on dev@, not just less discussion. Now that I
go back and look over the recent archives, it's not clear to me at all that if
we drop all the duplication we are now
On 09/12/2019 13:26, ajs6f wrote:
For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on GH so
the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe archive.
GH notifications include the ability to reply via email to put a remark in the
conversation. How will
>>> For pr@, reply-to is dev@ (same as commits@) - PR discussion is done on GH
>>> so the usual GH controls work for people. pr@ is more of a safe archive.
GH notifications include the ability to reply via email to put a remark in the
conversation. How will that work with this? IMO, that is
+1 This change seems like it will make my life easier so I am in favor ;)
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 05/12/2019 14:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for
> > discussions.
> >
> > Please yes/no/etc and
On 05/12/2019 14:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for
discussions.
Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote.
Ping?
When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to,
not some minority or rogue
Yes. This works for me as I already have filters that essentially do the
separation proposed pretty well.
Colin A. Gross
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:11 AM Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for
> discussions.
>
> Please yes/no/etc and when it
Now would be a good time to get this done so we can have dev@ for
discussions.
Please yes/no/etc and when it settles down I'll run a vote.
When going to infra, we then have a definite PMC agreement to point to,
not some minority or rogue action.
On 19/11/2019 19:55, aj...@apache.org wrote:
I like the idea of breaking PR discussions off, but if we're going to continue
to copy PR comments onto Jira tickets it only makes sense if we have separate
pr@ and issue@ lists. Also, we would have to stop copying them onto dev@ (which
I would be fine with).
Ideally, I would like to see
The dev@ list can be dominated by github discussions.
We have feeds from github PRs and JIRA. We could split the list in one
list per feed to leave the dev@ list for people.
While you can do this with mail client rules, searching using the
archives isn't easy.
Suggestion:
Add email lists
14 matches
Mail list logo
