Hi Gilles, 2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
> Hi. > > In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the > traffic volume is a stumbling block. > [For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the > usual dismissal about filters won't change the fact: Setting > up a filter that will redirect stuff to /dev/null is a waste > of bandwidth.] > > If different ML are created, people interested in everything > can subscribe _once_, and nothing will change for them. > For people who spend a lot of time just deleting dozens messages > and notifications a day, it will be a relief. > > Maintaining community conversation is not a problem: just > create an "all-...@commons.apache.org" ML for things that > need input form a larger audience (like votes). > Personally I don't care. I have filters set up and if we would do the much, I'd simply subscribe to all MLs. I agree that it seems to be a problem for some that the ML has so much traffic. So we should think about this. There are two questions for me: - What about commits@ and issues@? Do we simply route commits and issues to the component MLs or do we want to have separate commit MLs on a per component basis? - How do we want to manage the transition? I think the process we choose for the git migration is a good one. If a component decides it needs a separate ML, they can simply request one. All other components simply stay on dev@ For example I don't see much value in creating a primit...@comons.apache.org ML, simply because there is so low activity right now. Regards, Benedikt > > > Best regards, > Gilles > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
