You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> on 2015/08/06 19:52:08 UTC
Re: Branch "1.5" returns
in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
threads.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will that
> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help roll
> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I
> recreated
> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle on
> 1.5.4
> >> and
> >> > try to drop it again after.
> >> >
> >> > - Josh
> >>
>
--
Sean
Re: Branch "1.5" returns
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
I see [DISCUSS] threads tending to discuss either big features, or the
direction of the project. There are plenty of other threads on dev@ that
look more like bug reports, architecture questions, or otherwise focused on
implementation details. My two kopeks.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is there a standard for this you're going by, which we should consider
> formally adopting? Or is this just how you subjectively think it
> should work?
>
> Unlike [VOTE] or [ANNOUNCE], where I think we're all pretty much on
> the same page, it seems very likely to me that there are many
> different opinions about when [DISCUSS] is necessary and when it is
> implied, as well as very many different ways people filter their
> mailing list emails. (FWIW, I personally write my filters to omit
> things I'm not interested in, rather than positively flag things I am
> interested in.)
>
> If there's some proposed objective standard, though, which would be
> useful to adopt as a group and which would be useful to many people,
> I'd be interested in considering adopting that (at least, for
> conversations I initiate on the mailing lists).
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > [DISCUSS] is generally used to flag threads that the sender expects to be
> > of higher priority interest as a courtesy to folks who may not have time
> to
> > read all of the threads that happen on a mailing list, similar to how
> > [VOTE] is used to signal PMC members who might be otherwise filtering.
> >
> > I would be surprised if all the messages on any mailing list warranted a
> > [DISCUSS] flagging.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> > in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
> >> > threads.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
> >> >> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will
> that
> >> >> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help
> roll
> >> >> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I
> >> >> recreated
> >> >> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle
> on
> >> >> 1.5.4
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > try to drop it again after.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > - Josh
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>
Re: Branch "1.5" returns
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Is there a standard for this you're going by, which we should consider
formally adopting? Or is this just how you subjectively think it
should work?
Unlike [VOTE] or [ANNOUNCE], where I think we're all pretty much on
the same page, it seems very likely to me that there are many
different opinions about when [DISCUSS] is necessary and when it is
implied, as well as very many different ways people filter their
mailing list emails. (FWIW, I personally write my filters to omit
things I'm not interested in, rather than positively flag things I am
interested in.)
If there's some proposed objective standard, though, which would be
useful to adopt as a group and which would be useful to many people,
I'd be interested in considering adopting that (at least, for
conversations I initiate on the mailing lists).
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> [DISCUSS] is generally used to flag threads that the sender expects to be
> of higher priority interest as a courtesy to folks who may not have time to
> read all of the threads that happen on a mailing list, similar to how
> [VOTE] is used to signal PMC members who might be otherwise filtering.
>
> I would be surprised if all the messages on any mailing list warranted a
> [DISCUSS] flagging.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
>> > threads.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
>> >> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will that
>> >> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help roll
>> >> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I
>> >> recreated
>> >> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle on
>> >> 1.5.4
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > try to drop it again after.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - Josh
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sean
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
Re: Branch "1.5" returns
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
[DISCUSS] is generally used to flag threads that the sender expects to be
of higher priority interest as a courtesy to folks who may not have time to
read all of the threads that happen on a mailing list, similar to how
[VOTE] is used to signal PMC members who might be otherwise filtering.
I would be surprised if all the messages on any mailing list warranted a
[DISCUSS] flagging.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
> > threads.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
> >> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will that
> >> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help roll
> >> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I
> >> recreated
> >> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle on
> >> 1.5.4
> >> >> and
> >> >> > try to drop it again after.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Josh
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>
--
Sean
Re: Branch "1.5" returns
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Can't we assume [DISCUSS] is the default mode on our mailing lists?
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> in the future, please use [DISCUSS] in the subject for these kinds of
> threads.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Works for me. Let me know if you want me to prep RCs.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > My assumption was to knock them both out.
>> > On Jul 28, 2015 4:52 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On that issue, there was discussion about a follow-on task. Will that
>> >> task be done for 1.5.4 also? Either way, I'd be willing to help roll
>> >> out 1.5.4 quickly.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > ACCUMULO-3939 affects only 1.5 and was asked of by a user, so I
>> recreated
>> >> > the branch to land the fix. Hopefully we can keep a short cycle on
>> 1.5.4
>> >> and
>> >> > try to drop it again after.
>> >> >
>> >> > - Josh
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean