accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Branch "1.5" returns
Date Thu, 06 Aug 2015 19:23:38 GMT
Is there a standard for this you're going by, which we should consider
formally adopting? Or is this just how you subjectively think it
should work?

Unlike [VOTE] or [ANNOUNCE], where I think we're all pretty much on
the same page, it seems very likely to me that there are many
different opinions about when [DISCUSS] is necessary and when it is
implied, as well as very many different ways people filter their
mailing list emails. (FWIW, I personally write my filters to omit
things I'm not interested in, rather than positively flag things I am
interested in.)

If there's some proposed objective standard, though, which would be
useful to adopt as a group and which would be useful to many people,
I'd be interested in considering adopting that (at least, for
conversations I initiate on the mailing lists).

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> [DISCUSS] is generally used to flag threads that the sender expects to be
> of higher priority interest as a courtesy to folks who may not have time to
> read all of the threads that happen on a mailing list, similar to how
> [VOTE] is used to signal PMC members who might be otherwise filtering.
>
> I would be surprised if all the messages on any mailing list warranted a
> [DISCUSS] flagging.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
>> > threads.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
>> >> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will
that
>> >> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help
roll
>> >> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user,
so I
>> >> recreated
>> >> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short
cycle on
>> >> 1.5.4
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > try to drop it again after.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - Josh
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sean
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean

Mime
View raw message