mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:20:04 GMT
Discussions happened on Github are highly valuable, as a matter of fact, we
have quite a lot of proliferating contributors who discuss things on
GitHub when they contribute.
We need to be inclusive to these contributors, to welcome and recognize
these discussions.

The filtering solutions seem to be good enough for people who do not want
to receive these messages, so I see there is no down side from doing this

Tianqi


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