On 8/15/16, 10:27 AM, "Jeremiah D Jordan" <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are
basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
This is why I proposed we send a link to the design lira’s to the dev list.
Sure, except I didn’t read that mail yet. Give me more than a few minutes to
catch up. I saw Aleksey’s email, so I replied to it.
> Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
watching
I don’t see how a JIRA dedicated to a specific issue is “high noise” ?
That single JIRA is much lower noise, it only has conversations around that
specific ticket. All conversations happening on the dev list at once seems
much “higher noise” to me.
I never said that. I said that JIRA itself has high noise around it’s signal.
You get
an email with links at the top, and you get dates, times, and a whole
surrounding
envelope email that you have to dig through to find the actual conversation.
Then,
to reply to it, I’ve got to click to an external site out of my mail browser,
then possibly
log in, and then interact there.
The point being that it’s not as straight forward as simply email. Realize,
that you
are trying to capture the minimum viable interaction and to try and be the most
inclusive for your dev community. Having convos on the dev list is part of that.
JIRA is a great tool for what it does – but it should not be the minimum entry
point
for a (healthy) project. Sure you can cite X, Y, Z projects that do it. In most
cases,
I can cite eventual community issues with doing that and a lot of pain/work to
use
it correctly.
Chris
-Jeremiah
> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine,
but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
watching
> the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so
you are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
>
> You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@
and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan
(jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one place,
and it is easy to refer someone to it in the future.
> But I agree that JIRA tickets with a bunch of design discussion and
POC’s and such in them can get pretty long and convoluted.
>
> I don’t really like the idea of moving all of that discussion to email
which makes it has harder to point someone to it. Maybe a better idea would be
to have a “design/POC” JIRA and an “implementation” JIRA. That way we could
still keep things in JIRA, but the final decision would be kept “clean”.
>
> Though it would be nice if people would send an email to the dev list
when proposing “design” JIRA’s, as not everyone has time to follow every JIRA
ever made to see that a new design JIRA was created that they might be
interested in participating on.
>
> My 2c.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
>
>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development
discussions
>> on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless nature
>> helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked.
>>
>> But Cassandra was a lot smaller then, and as we've grown it has become
>> necessary to separate out the signal (discussions of new features and
major
>> changes) from the noise of routine bug reports.
>>
>> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that
>> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be
>> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved
to
>> Jira for implementation and review.
>>
>> I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea
proves
>> to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much
>> discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion was,
as
>> review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that discussion on
the
>> list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>> @spyced
>
>
>
>
