Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the longest
replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate list.
I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea for
the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML.

-Todd

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:

> My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the other
> way then no big deal.
>
> Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to JIRA
> how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review traffic
> (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way (however,
> it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).
>
> I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search index
> for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it, since
> I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need when
> I
> > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports are
> > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation
> details
> > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
> >
> > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives
> anyway,
> > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to the
> > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code reviews).
> But I
> > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: bug
> > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
> > > > reviews. My arguments are:
> > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to
> > > > reviews@,
> > > > etc.).
> > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools
> > > often
> > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies
> > > 'manual'
> > > > searching.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both
> code
> > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in commit
> > > messages and code review conversation?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> > > jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if
> folks
> > > > > complain it's still not good enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > J-D
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in
> > > > pushing
> > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to
> move
> > > the
> > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to
> subscribe
> > > to
> > > > > and
> > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every
> revision
> > of
> > > > > every
> > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle
> > where
> > > > to
> > > > > > move it *to*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were two options:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when
> > > someone
> > > > > is
> > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't
> necessarily
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to
> > > just
> > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already
> provides
> > an
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can
> > > > always
> > > > > > separate them back out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent',
> > > > though
> > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited!
> Would
> > be
> > > > > great
> > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on
> our
> > > > > > upcoming podling report.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Todd
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

Turns out the JIRA wasn't the right place... but I filed an 'mlreq' form,
and now waiting on infra. Someone on IRC #asf told me "expect some delays",
so perhaps some of the people in charge of mailing list creation are on
vacation or somesuch. EIther way, we should expect a new mailing list "some
time soon". When it shows up I'll change the gerrit configuration and let
everyone know so they can subscribe.

-Todd

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> OK, I filed
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-11797
> to create a new reviews@ list
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chris George <Ch...@rms.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for splitŠ I already have email filters to catch the gerrit stuff
>> though, but I can see the reasoning behind splitting it.
>>
>> On 5/2/16, 1:40 PM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm +0 with the split.
>> >
>> >On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the
>> >>longest
>> >> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate
>> list.
>> >> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea
>> for
>> >> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML.
>> >>
>> >> -Todd
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the
>> >> other
>> >> > way then no big deal.
>> >> >
>> >> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to
>> >> JIRA
>> >> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review
>> >> traffic
>> >> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way
>> >> (however,
>> >> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).
>> >> >
>> >> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search
>> >> index
>> >> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it,
>> >> since
>> >> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need
>> >> when
>> >> > I
>> >> > > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports
>> >>are
>> >> > > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation
>> >> > details
>> >> > > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives
>> >> > anyway,
>> >> > > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> > > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code
>> >>reviews).
>> >> > But I
>> >> > > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do:
>> >>bug
>> >> > > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture
>> >>code
>> >> > > > > reviews. My arguments are:
>> >> > > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@,
>> gerrit
>> >>to
>> >> > > > > reviews@,
>> >> > > > > etc.).
>> >> > > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search
>> >> tools
>> >> > > > often
>> >> > > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews
>> >>simplifies
>> >> > > > 'manual'
>> >> > > > > searching.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from
>> >>both
>> >> > code
>> >> > > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in
>> >> commit
>> >> > > > messages and code review conversation?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> >> > > > jdcryans@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@
>> if
>> >> > folks
>> >> > > > > > complain it's still not good enough.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > J-D
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon
>> >><todd@cloudera.com
>> >> >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been
>> >>delinquent
>> >> in
>> >> > > > > pushing
>> >> > > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good
>> >>to
>> >> > move
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to
>> >> > subscribe
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every
>> >> > revision
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > > > every
>> >> > > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite
>> >>settle
>> >> > > where
>> >> > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > move it *to*.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > There were two options:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
>> >> > > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes
>> >>when
>> >> > > > someone
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't
>> >> > necessarily
>> >> > > > > > create a
>> >> > > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to
>> >>subscribe
>> >> to
>> >> > > > just
>> >> > > > > > JIRA
>> >> > > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already
>> >> > provides
>> >> > > an
>> >> > > > > > easy
>> >> > > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line)
>> >>people
>> >> can
>> >> > > > > always
>> >> > > > > > > separate them back out.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more
>> >> 'consistent',
>> >> > > > > though
>> >> > > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions
>> solicited!
>> >> > Would
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > > > great
>> >> > > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress
>> >>back on
>> >> > our
>> >> > > > > > > upcoming podling report.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > -Todd
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Todd Lipcon
>> >> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Todd Lipcon
>> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

OK, I filed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-11797 to
create a new reviews@ list

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chris George <Ch...@rms.com>
wrote:

> +1 for splitŠ I already have email filters to catch the gerrit stuff
> though, but I can see the reasoning behind splitting it.
>
> On 5/2/16, 1:40 PM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >I'm +0 with the split.
> >
> >On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the
> >>longest
> >> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate list.
> >> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea for
> >> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML.
> >>
> >> -Todd
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the
> >> other
> >> > way then no big deal.
> >> >
> >> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to
> >> JIRA
> >> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review
> >> traffic
> >> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way
> >> (however,
> >> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).
> >> >
> >> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search
> >> index
> >> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it,
> >> since
> >> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need
> >> when
> >> > I
> >> > > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports
> >>are
> >> > > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation
> >> > details
> >> > > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
> >> > >
> >> > > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives
> >> > anyway,
> >> > > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to
> >> the
> >> > > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code
> >>reviews).
> >> > But I
> >> > > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do:
> >>bug
> >> > > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture
> >>code
> >> > > > > reviews. My arguments are:
> >> > > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit
> >>to
> >> > > > > reviews@,
> >> > > > > etc.).
> >> > > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search
> >> tools
> >> > > > often
> >> > > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews
> >>simplifies
> >> > > > 'manual'
> >> > > > > searching.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from
> >>both
> >> > code
> >> > > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in
> >> commit
> >> > > > messages and code review conversation?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> >> > > > jdcryans@apache.org>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if
> >> > folks
> >> > > > > > complain it's still not good enough.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > J-D
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon
> >><todd@cloudera.com
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been
> >>delinquent
> >> in
> >> > > > > pushing
> >> > > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good
> >>to
> >> > move
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to
> >> > subscribe
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every
> >> > revision
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > every
> >> > > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite
> >>settle
> >> > > where
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > move it *to*.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > There were two options:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> >> > > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes
> >>when
> >> > > > someone
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't
> >> > necessarily
> >> > > > > > create a
> >> > > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to
> >>subscribe
> >> to
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > > > JIRA
> >> > > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already
> >> > provides
> >> > > an
> >> > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line)
> >>people
> >> can
> >> > > > > always
> >> > > > > > > separate them back out.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more
> >> 'consistent',
> >> > > > > though
> >> > > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited!
> >> > Would
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > great
> >> > > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress
> >>back on
> >> > our
> >> > > > > > > upcoming podling report.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Todd
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Todd Lipcon
> >> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Todd Lipcon
> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
>
>


-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Chris George <Ch...@rms.com>]

+1 for splitŠ I already have email filters to catch the gerrit stuff
though, but I can see the reasoning behind splitting it.

On 5/2/16, 1:40 PM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <jd...@apache.org> wrote:

>I'm +0 with the split.
>
>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the
>>longest
>> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate list.
>> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea for
>> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the
>> other
>> > way then no big deal.
>> >
>> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to
>> JIRA
>> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review
>> traffic
>> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way
>> (however,
>> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).
>> >
>> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search
>> index
>> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it,
>> since
>> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need
>> when
>> > I
>> > > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports
>>are
>> > > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation
>> > details
>> > > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
>> > >
>> > > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives
>> > anyway,
>> > > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to
>> the
>> > > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code
>>reviews).
>> > But I
>> > > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do:
>>bug
>> > > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture
>>code
>> > > > > reviews. My arguments are:
>> > > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit
>>to
>> > > > > reviews@,
>> > > > > etc.).
>> > > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search
>> tools
>> > > > often
>> > > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews
>>simplifies
>> > > > 'manual'
>> > > > > searching.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from
>>both
>> > code
>> > > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in
>> commit
>> > > > messages and code review conversation?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> > > > jdcryans@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if
>> > folks
>> > > > > > complain it's still not good enough.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > J-D
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon
>><todd@cloudera.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been
>>delinquent
>> in
>> > > > > pushing
>> > > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good
>>to
>> > move
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to
>> > subscribe
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every
>> > revision
>> > > of
>> > > > > > every
>> > > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite
>>settle
>> > > where
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > move it *to*.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > There were two options:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
>> > > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes
>>when
>> > > > someone
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't
>> > necessarily
>> > > > > > create a
>> > > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to
>>subscribe
>> to
>> > > > just
>> > > > > > JIRA
>> > > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already
>> > provides
>> > > an
>> > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line)
>>people
>> can
>> > > > > always
>> > > > > > > separate them back out.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more
>> 'consistent',
>> > > > > though
>> > > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited!
>> > Would
>> > > be
>> > > > > > great
>> > > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress
>>back on
>> > our
>> > > > > > > upcoming podling report.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -Todd
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Todd Lipcon
>> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>]

I'm +0 with the split.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the longest
> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate list.
> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea for
> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the
> other
> > way then no big deal.
> >
> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to
> JIRA
> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review
> traffic
> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way
> (however,
> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).
> >
> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search
> index
> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it,
> since
> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need
> when
> > I
> > > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports are
> > > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation
> > details
> > > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
> > >
> > > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives
> > anyway,
> > > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to
> the
> > > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code reviews).
> > But I
> > > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: bug
> > > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
> > > > > reviews. My arguments are:
> > > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to
> > > > > reviews@,
> > > > > etc.).
> > > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search
> tools
> > > > often
> > > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies
> > > > 'manual'
> > > > > searching.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both
> > code
> > > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in
> commit
> > > > messages and code review conversation?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> > > > jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if
> > folks
> > > > > > complain it's still not good enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J-D
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent
> in
> > > > > pushing
> > > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to
> > move
> > > > the
> > > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to
> > subscribe
> > > > to
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every
> > revision
> > > of
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle
> > > where
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > move it *to*.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There were two options:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when
> > > > someone
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't
> > necessarily
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe
> to
> > > > just
> > > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already
> > provides
> > > an
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people
> can
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > separate them back out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more
> 'consistent',
> > > > > though
> > > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited!
> > Would
> > > be
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on
> > our
> > > > > > > upcoming podling report.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Todd
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>