On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:00:34 +0000, sebb wrote:
On 17 January 2015 at 14:23, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
I agree - we're hung up on a clown from the 90s. It's so much
simpler click watch on github and get notifications. Also
stackoverflow has a much broader Java community and having traffic
go
through it could benefit this community.
I'm afraid that the main problem is not the tool.
Step 1: an issue is felt as a problem by some people (from the
community or might-be contributors)
Step 2: people (from the community) who don't feel the problem
try to demonstrate that there isn't a problem, thus
dismissing the (argumented) feeling of others
This can destroy a community, or at least prevent its expansion.
[And the "Commons" project's (with the word "project" as in "an
Apache project") community certainly does not benefit from a
pool of contributors commensurate with its purported goal and
user base.]
On the practical side, I'm not (yet) against having a single "dev"
list: discussions about design are usually interesting even if
applied to another project's codebase (with the the word "project"
as in "programming project").
But lately, the flood of automatic notifications (commits and CI)
has drowned the useful discussions.
commits are already sent to a separate list.
The more stringent problem is getting _all_ the projects' commits!
I have just recently changed Continuum and the Jenkins Math job to
use
commits as well.
What other automatic notifications are still affecting the dev list?
Maybe they can be redirected elsewhere.
For people who do not contribute to a project (i.e. neither
providing code nor checking it), a commit diff is just noise
because they lack context (not being aquainted with the codebase).
Indeed, which is why it is good that they are sent to a different
mailing list.
Good, yes. Enough, no.
The Commons community's implied answer to the stated fact is
that people who feel that way should change their perception of
reality, or go away.
The respectful answer would be to solve the problem with the
readily available technology of the 1990s: separate MLs for
each project's _notifications_ (with the word "project" as in
"programming project").
As already previously noted, the PMC are responsible for oversight
and
so must see all the commits.
No, they _must_ not. Because you cannot enforce the "must". [As noted
by several people, they use filters...]
People do what they want, and what they can.
The number of people voting for any one release of a given
(programming) project is proof enough that not everybody checks
everything.
Even those who vote "should" review, but not necessarily do so
extensively (if, for example, what is more important for them is
that the release happens).
[To avoid instant flaming, I immediately stress that it is _not_
to say that Apache should publish unreviewed code...]
Would it really make enough of a difference to non-PMC members to be
worth the additional work (ours and Infra) of setting up individual
commit lists?
The result would be worth it; oh, yes!
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine how much work this is going to be,
as I never delved into commit trigger scripts.
Gilles
Regards,
Gilles
Ole
On 01/16/2015 10:21 AM, Ben McCann wrote:
I find the whole I idea of a mailing list very 1990s. I'd much
prefer
something like Google Groups where I can set my notification
preferences
easily to send me updates only on certain threads such as threads
I've
started, which has a nice easily browsable and searchable web
interface,
and where I do not have to go through a signup process for each
new
group/list I want to post to. I feel many of the problems folks
are
talking
about here are caused by using a frustrating technology. E.g. it
was
mentioned that if we split mailing lists that joining every list
would be
very painful. Perhaps that's because the process of joining just a
single
list is too difficult. Having to setup filters is also not very
user-friendly. How do I make a filter that says only put threads
on which
I've participated in my inbox? There's probably a way, but it's
not as
obvious as clicking a single button. And even with filters I still
don't
want most of this garbage coming to my mail account anyway because
it
pollutes my search results when I'm looking for something I do
care
about.
I signed up for the dev list just so that I could ask that someone
reviews
and commits my patch
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-186>
(which
I still need help with), but I really have no interest in getting
any
commons mail beyond that. I've never participated in any of these
other
projects and flooding my inbox is just frustrating and isn't going
to
cause
me to start. The web interface for mailing list archives is truly
horrendous.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:52:36 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Was it mentioned that anybody would be forbidden to subscribe to
any
ML they see fit?
You missed my point - but never mind.
What was it?
Judging from your comments below, you completely missed mine.
That comparison is pretty flawed as those projects are not
tiny
components.
I'm not talking about the size of components, but the size of
the
ML traffic.
So just because a component/project has a lot of ML traffic you
want
to make it TLP?
I never said that.
I'm only complaining about ML traffic.
Usually it should be about having enough active committers and
users.
While this might contribute to ML traffic, it doesn't
necessarily
mean the same.
I've never a great fan of umbrellas but the components are so
small -
I don't see another option. The thought of components to go
TLP feels
just plain silly to me. Hence it would be great to work
together as a
community that takes care of those components.
The idea of "Commons Math" being a component is silly, but we
can
accept
silly things that result from history (and consider the
practical
advantages, as I noted elsewhere).
Well, by the current definition it's not an Apache project. Call
it
sub-project if you like - I don't care.
What I'm calling "project" is a _programming_ project; that's the
word
I'm used to; do you have another one?
Every component is a separate programming project, it's a simple
fact.
At some stage we decided to call it component. After all I see
it as
a library.
Do you think it's more and needs to be raised to the level to
full
blown project like hadoop or httpd?
Not sure it Math holds that comparison but you are welcome to
convince
us.
I think that this has nothing to do with this thread.
If it depends on the name of the list, I guess that the "sense
of
community" is not very developed...
And that's what I call an oversimplification.
You brought that up (one community == one list). Or another
missed
point?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
