2020-07-23 1:27 UTC+02:00, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>: > -0: We already have issues@ for automated emails. Whether it's automated > from one place or another does not matter (to me). > > "If I'm not mistaken, the issues@ ML was intended to keep one > posted of and reactive on a human discussion happening on > JIRA." > > That's what dev@ is for IMO, humans.
dev@ gets messages posted _there_ by humans, yes. issues@ gets messages on JIRA, originally by humans, and now overwhelmingly by bots (the cause for this proposal). > I've never seen issues@ used as the > target of human messages, only as a sink for bots. I repeat: in the past, it was a relay of human messages. Now it is a relay of a relay (JIRA) of GitHub. > > Automated git emails already go to issues@, No: Git email go to "commits@", fortunately. > as do Jira automated email. We > don't yet yet another list for some other kind of automated message. I beg to differ: human != bot. In the case of JIRA, the relay to issues@ is the only channel that keeps one informed of a comment posted there by a human. My impression is that GitHub comments are relayed redundantly to "issues@": Isn't it the case that you also receive updates by being logged in into GitHub? [If not, then let's say that GH comments should still go to "issues@".] A bot posting that some PR is being merged is just noise because it is redundant with the git messages sent to "commits@". Then, for people like me, a bot posting that a PR was submitted through GH is worse than useless because I cannot interact with the contributor. [Another discussion that did not happen where it has become accepted that the Apache official bug-tracking system (JIRA) is bypassed.] > > If anything, it might be clearer to rename issues@ to botsink@ or some > such. We should have both. Gilles > > Gary > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 6:27 PM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> The situation with tool generated messages sent to >> iss...@commons.apache.org >> has gotten from bad to worse. >> >> It's great that more and more work is reviewed by automated >> tools and reports sent for every and all kinds of potentially >> interesting nit of information. >> It's not great, IMHO, that tools that fit a particular developer's >> work flow continuously spam all contributors. >> >> If I'm not mistaken, the issues@ ML was intended to keep one >> posted of and reactive on a human discussion happening on >> JIRA. With the advent of JIRA-GitHub integration, the ratio of >> auto-generated messages relayed through that channel has >> exploded, with literally hundreds of redundant messages per >> week (or in a single day, today). >> >> Could we have a ML dedicated to bot-generated messages >> (or, if this trend continues, one ML for each type of activity >> that might, or might not, interest a particular set of people)? >> >> Specifically, I propose that >> github-iss...@commons.apache.org >> be set up for relaying GitHub generated posts (like comments, >> PRs merging, and so on) and that >> iss...@commons.apache.org >> returns to its original purpose (only). >> >> Thanks, >> Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
