lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: lucy-issues list
Date Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:11:03 GMT
I fear it's only human/dev nature to engage in meandering conversations no matter the channel,
so I don't know whether a separate issues list will "work", but I agree it's worth a shot!


On Jul 25, 2010, at 1:36 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>

> +1, sounds good to me to have the additional lucy-issues@ lists per the specification
you mention below, Marvin...
> Cheers,
> Chris
> On 7/24/10 10:16 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:
> Greets,
> Lucene sub-projects traditionally have all JIRA notifications sent to the dev
> list.  However, not all Apache projects follow this convention -- some have
> dedicated "issues" lists.  Although it was not in our proposal, I think Lucy
> should consider requesting such a list.
> First, JIRA is noisy.  There are too many messages, and though I generally try
> to make sure that even the messages where I attach files contain meaningful
> comments, most people on other lists (e.g. dev@lucene.a.o) do not, resulting
> in voluminous notification-only traffic to the dev list.  Furthermore, lots of
> people make trivial edits to their JIRA comments, resulting in heinous
> pseuedo-diff messages containing the entire "before" and "after", no matter
> how small the change.
> Second, meandering conversations in JIRA become commonplace when cc'd to the
> dev list.  This is bad because posters are not able to change the subject line,
> so the archives become harder to peruse and search.  Important conversations
> get buried in giganto JIRA threads -- e.g.
> <>, where per-segment search
> was hashed out.  Browsing conversations via Apache's enormous JIRA installation
> is a pain -- is overloaded and slow, and the JIRA search
> interface is not to everyone's liking.  There are numerous mail archiving
> services with interfaces to suit a variety of tastes (Markmail, Nabble, etc.)
> -- these all function better when fed traditional email list posts than JIRA
> notifications.
> My preference is to limit exchanges in JIRA to technical issues of applying
> patches.  All consensus building and discussion should take place on the dev
> list, as Karl Fogel advocates:
>    No Conversations in the Bug Tracker
>    In any project that's making active use of its bug tracker, there is
>    always a danger of the tracker turning into a discussion forum itself,
>    even though the mailing lists would really be better. Usually it starts
>    off innocently enough: someone annotates an issue with, say, a proposed
>    solution, or a partial patch. Someone else sees this, realizes there are
>    problems with the solution, and attaches another annotation pointing out
>    the problems. The first person responds, again by appending to the
>    issue...and so it goes.
>    ...
>    There isn't one right answer, but there is a general principle: if you're
>    just adding data to an issue, then do it in the tracker, but if you're
>    starting a conversation, then do it on the mailing list.
> To this end, I propose the following:
>    * Request a lucy-issues@incubator.a.o list.
>    * Change all JIRA notifications to go to the lucy-issues list.
>    * Set followups on lucy-issues to go to lucy-dev.
> Marvin Humphrey
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email:
> WWW:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

View raw message