I get 2500+ emails a day and I don't filter dev as I like to stay engaged. If this list becomes too noisy everyone will just filter it into a black hole. Sad.
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Russell Bradberry <rbradbe...@gmail.com<mailto:rbradbe...@gmail.com>> wrote: So then what was the point of Ellis’s proposal, and this discussion, if there was never a choice in the matter in the first place? On 8/15/16, 2:03 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <mattm...@apache.org<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>> wrote: I’m sorry but you are massively confused if you believe that the ASF mailing lists aren’t the source of truth. They are. That’s not optional. If you are an ASF project, mailing lists are the source of truth. Period. On 8/15/16, 11:01 AM, "Michael Kjellman" <mkjell...@internalcircle.com<mailto:mkjell...@internalcircle.com>> wrote: I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very findable for new people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able to find the same thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in the project in the first place. Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific issues to the attention of the broader community. It should never be the source of truth. best, kjellman Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org<mailto:mattm...@apache.org><mailto:mattm...@apache.org>> wrote: Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already* on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage the *entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. The mailing list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. They *are* the lifeblood of the Apache project. On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" <dri...@gmail.com<mailto:dri...@gmail.com><mailto:dri...@gmail.com>> wrote: I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita <mor.y...@gmail.com<mailto:mor.y...@gmail.com><mailto:mor.y...@gmail.com>> wrote: As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later. I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number written to the comment or text. If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA. So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org<mailto:mattm...@apache.org><mailto:mattm...@apache.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:alek...@apache.org><mailto: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<mailto:mattm...@apache.org><mailto: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<mailto:alek...@apache.org><mailto: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<mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto:jbel...@gmail.com><mailto: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 -- Yuki Morishita t:yukim (http://twitter.com/yukim)
