activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:27:23 GMT
lets make it simple:

I suggest we create a list called gitbox@activemq.apache.org, and move
the traffic from gitbox/github discussions there.



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19 AM Robbie Gemmell
<robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments inline
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal.
>
> Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I
> only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using
> commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated
> timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address
> this.
>
> If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy
> consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do
> and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and
> lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I
> wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all.
>
> As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw
> that was what you had already requested without saying that
> previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR
> comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me.
>
> > Those
> > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out).
>
> Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I
> wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list,
> I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently
> alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails
> moved over to issues@a.a.o).
>
> >I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> >
>
> I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them
> there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been
> mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving.
>
> > I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> >
>
> What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good
> to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think.
> It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask
> tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have
> sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually
> care what its called.
>
> The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days
> to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the
> way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years.
>
> > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA.
> > If not please let Me know.
>
> I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your
> decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or
> suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet.
>
> As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an
> existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think
> commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred
> instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once
> censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it.
>
> After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed
> with the redirection to the target list.
>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > > email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > > > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > > > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > > > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > > > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > > >
> > > > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > > > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > > > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > > > things to use it.
> > > >
> > > > Robbie
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > > > >
> > > > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > > period
> > > > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate
it.
> > > > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
but
> > > > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > > suggests
> > > > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of
the
> > > > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
properly
> > > > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list'
was the
> > > > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was
only
> > > > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments
on PRs
> > > > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where
the
> > > JIRA
> > > > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd
say that
> > > > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely
new
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but
we
> > > should
> > > > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that
Infra to
> > > > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
where
> > > > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
applies
> > > in
> > > > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back
into
> > > the
> > > > > > same place they were going originally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robbie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the
gitbox
> > > > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people
joining
> > > in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
> > > joining)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub
messages to
> > > a new list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly
anyways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new
list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce
<
> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more
than adequate,
> > > and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
> > > all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert
Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > > on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> > > way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> > > myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> > > easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> > > way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> > > addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right
now
> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> > > gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> > > and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> > > most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019
at
> > > 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
> People
> > > are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
On Fri,
> > > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <opiske@redhat.com> wrote:> >>
> >
> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
that the Github
> > > messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires
constant
> > > cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> > > that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> >
> On Fri, Feb
> > > 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
>
> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my
daily basis.  We had
> > > some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and
we decided
> > > to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.
  Etc.> > > >>
> > > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.>
> > >>
> > > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because
there>
> > > is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >>
> > > Github is easy enough to
> > > follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> >
> > separate
> > > list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave
this list for more generic and
> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site.
Architectural
> > > decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes
but without the
> > > clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic>
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic>
>>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message