mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:21:03 GMT
to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions
are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.

Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from day
one.


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha <szha.pvg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
> the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend
> to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
> the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> communicate with the community on the list.
>
> -sz
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> Christopher.Barber@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers
> to
> > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> >
> > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> someone
> > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> notifications?
> > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> interest
> > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> > very careful with this.
> >
> > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > anything to grow the community in any case.
> >
> > - C
> >
> > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu" <indhubharathi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > discussions in
> >     dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
> >     discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> >
> >     In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> GitHub
> > PRs.
> >     If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> > let's
> >     forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> count.
> >     That's the motivation for this vote.
> >
> >     I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev
> > list,
> >     I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR
> is
> >     created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> > think
> >     people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct
> > way to
> >     address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> >     communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> >     channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> >
> >     Indu
> >
> >
> >     On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> >     Christopher.Barber@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it
> > is safe
> >     > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out
> how
> > to do
> >     > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> here?
> >     >
> >     > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> >     >
> >     >     seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident)
> > to
> >     > *not*
> >     >     have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> > then later
> >     >     claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> > through
> >     >     thousands of emails to find it.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> > rahulhuilgol@gmail.com
> >     > >
> >     >     wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> > decision.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of
> emails
> > to
> >     > their
> >     >     > dev@
> >     >     > list in the last 30 days
> >     >     > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> >     >     > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> >     >     > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> >     >     > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> >     >     > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> >     >     > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails
> > are
> >     > relevant
> >     >     > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130
> > email
> >     > lists
> >     >     > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails
> > in
> >     > those
> >     >     > lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ).
> > People
> >     > are
> >     >     > already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that
> > defeat
> >     > the
> >     >     > purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github?
> > People
> >     > can
> >     >     > subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to
> > follow
> >     > Github
> >     >     > activity over email rather than Github.com.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high
> quality
> >     > discussion.
> >     >     > It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if
> > they
> >     > believe
> >     >     > it
> >     >     > deserves a focused discussion in the community. That
> > discussion may
> >     > be
> >     >     > started by the person who proposes code changes, or a
> reviewer
> > who
> >     > believes
> >     >     > that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Regards,
> >     >     > Rahul
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>

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