geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Discussions of API changes missing or lost in noise
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:23:43 GMT
+1!

Very good/helpful ideas, Dan.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Joey McAllister <jmcallister@pivotal.io>
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 <dsmith@pivotal.io> 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)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message