On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 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.
Components with enough activity to sustain separate lists should be moving to a TLP. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
