BTW in Spark the consensus so far was that we’d use the dev@ list for high-level discussions (e.g. change in the development process, major features, proposals of new components, release votes) and keep lower-level issue tracking in JIRA. This is just how the project operated before so it was the easiest way for people to continue.
Matei On May 18, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, maybe it’s just different in other Apache projects. All the ones I’ve > participated in have had their design discussions on JIRA. For example take a > look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4949. (Most design > discussions in Hadoop are also on JIRA). > > Hosting it this way is more convenient because most users come in looking at > the issue tracker, not at mailing list archives (if only because the issue > tracker is much more searchable for issues). > > Matei > > On May 18, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@japila.pl> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Ash <and...@andrewash.com> wrote: >>> The nice thing about putting discussion on the Jira is that everything >>> about the bug is in one place. So people looking to understand the >>> discussion a few years from now only have to look on the jira ticket rather >>> than also search the mailing list archives and hope commenters all put the >>> string "SPARK-1855" into the messages. >> >> My understanding is that JIRA is not for discussions. In a sense it >> could be used for a few opinions, but have never seen it elsewhere and >> am curious if it's an approach for the project (that I might accept >> ultimately, but that would require some adoption time). >> >> What wrong with linking a discussion thread to a JIRA issue? >> >> Jacek >> >> -- >> Jacek Laskowski | http://blog.japila.pl >> "Never discourage anyone who continually makes progress, no matter how >> slow." Plato >
