This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.
On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@apache.org> wrote:
Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed, it
wouldn’t be an issue.
The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a summary, a link
to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).
No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements and
start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.
This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important, and at
the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you don’t
care about.
We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.
--
AY
On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, 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
