You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2019/02/14 23:36:40 UTC

[Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people to
filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.

But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.

I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there is too
much traffic.

Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub comments to a
separate list.


We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.  Such
as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually even
codes but without the clutter of github.
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17877

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> messages to the commit message.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> >
> > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
> >
> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
> >
> > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> >
> > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Issues@ seems to make the most sense to me.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:34 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You didn't say that you agreed with his 'for instance' example of
> commits@ though, you just subsequently said "What about this. We could
> ask Infra to move GitHub messages to a new list." Its hard for people
> to have agreed consensus on something they have not been told.
>
> If I were intending to raise a JIRA request later some week to divert
> mail traffic from one list to another list, I would expect to have
> already sent a mail informing people specifically which list it was
> going to and roughly when I might later raise that request, giving
> people the detail they need to agree or disagree and a timeline to do
> it, such that I can state [lazy] consensus at that time if discussion
> had not lead to alternative agreement. No need for assumption.
>
> Per my other mails, I like reusing issues@ personally, but am happy to
> go with anything (even commits@) if it seems most folks prefer it or
> it has actually got demonstrated [lazy] consensus behind it. Once that
> is better established I'll happily post on the JIRA.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 14:24, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
> >
> >
> > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on
> the
> > Jira so this moves on.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> > >> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them
> out). I
> > >> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out.
> But
> > >> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> > >>
> > >> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> > >>
> > >> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> > >> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > >>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > >>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > >>>
> > >>> Robbie
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have
> been
> > >>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > >>> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?
> Followed
> > >>> > by, why didnt we create it already using
> https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do
> seem
> > >>> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > >>> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> consensus
> > >>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to
> update
> > >>> > things to use it.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Robbie
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the
> list
> > >>> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > >>> period
> > >>> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you
> initiate it.
> > >>> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of
> days,
> > >>> but
> > >>> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > >>> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > >>> suggests
> > >>> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of
> the
> > >>> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
> > >>> properly
> > >>> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list'
> was
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was
> only
> > >>> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments
> on
> > >>> PRs
> > >>> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where
> the
> > >>> JIRA
> > >>> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd
> say
> > >>> that
> > >>> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely
> new
> > >>> > > > list.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but
> we
> > >>> should
> > >>> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that
> Infra
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
> > >>> where
> > >>> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
> > >>> applies in
> > >>> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back
> into
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > same place they were going originally.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Robbie
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the
> gitbox
> > >>> > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > >>> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people
> > >>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if
> someone
> > >>> just joining)
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub
> messages
> > >>> to  a new list.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly
> anyways.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > >>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >>
> > >>> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
> > >>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group
> subscriptions,
> > >>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> > >>> smartphone.
> > >>> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > >>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> > >>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with
> filtering.
> > >>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
> > >>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now.
> Justtrying to
> > >>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM
> Christopher
> > >>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
> > >>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail
> filters
> > >>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github
> traffic
> > >>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and
> labels
> > >>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get
> tagged with
> > >>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the
> issue.
> > >>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri,
> Feb 15,
> > >>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >>
> wrote:>>
> > >>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that
> noise.> >> >
> > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
> > >>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like
> to
> > >>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I
> think
> > >>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It>
> > >
> > >>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss
> discussions> >
> > >>> > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to
> help.> > >>
> > >>> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
> > >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this
> dev
> > >>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting
> doing
> > >>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter
> out
> > >>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy
> to
> > >>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy
> who
> > >>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much
> traffic.>
> > >>> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move
> GitHub>
> > >>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We
> could
> > >>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > >
> Such> > >
> > >>> > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And
> eventually> >
> > >>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
> > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> >
> --> >
> > >>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > --
> > >>> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > --
> > >>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
You didn't say that you agreed with his 'for instance' example of
commits@ though, you just subsequently said "What about this. We could
ask Infra to move GitHub messages to a new list." Its hard for people
to have agreed consensus on something they have not been told.

If I were intending to raise a JIRA request later some week to divert
mail traffic from one list to another list, I would expect to have
already sent a mail informing people specifically which list it was
going to and roughly when I might later raise that request, giving
people the detail they need to agree or disagree and a timeline to do
it, such that I can state [lazy] consensus at that time if discussion
had not lead to alternative agreement. No need for assumption.

Per my other mails, I like reusing issues@ personally, but am happy to
go with anything (even commits@) if it seems most folks prefer it or
it has actually got demonstrated [lazy] consensus behind it. Once that
is better established I'll happily post on the JIRA.

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 14:24, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
>
>
> If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
> Jira so this moves on.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> >> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
> >> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> >> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> >>
> >> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> >>
> >> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> >> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> >>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> >>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> >>>
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> >>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> >>> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> >>> > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> >>> >
> >>> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> >>> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> >>> >
> >>> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> >>> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> >>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> >>> > things to use it.
> >>> >
> >>> > Robbie
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
> >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> >>> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> >>> period
> >>> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> >>> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
> >>> but
> >>> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> >>> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> >>> suggests
> >>> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> >>> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
> >>> properly
> >>> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
> >>> the
> >>> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> >>> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
> >>> PRs
> >>> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> >>> JIRA
> >>> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
> >>> that
> >>> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> >>> > > > list.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> >>> should
> >>> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
> >>> to
> >>> > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
> >>> where
> >>> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
> >>> applies in
> >>> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> >>> the
> >>> > > > same place they were going originally.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Robbie
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> >>> > > > > messages to the commit message.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> >>> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people
> >>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
> >>> just joining)
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
> >>> to  a new list.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> >>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
> >>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
> >>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> >>> smartphone.
> >>> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> >>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> >>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
> >>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
> >>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
> >>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
> >>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
> >>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
> >>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
> >>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
> >>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
> >>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
> >>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
> >>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
> >>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
> >>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
> >>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
> >>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
> >>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
> >>> > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
> >>> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
> >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
> >>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
> >>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
> >>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
> >>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
> >>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
> >>> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
> >>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
> >>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
> >>> > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
> >>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
> >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
> >>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > --
> >>> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
So as i said im +0 for it to be a new list as you had originally proposed.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  20:28  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list What's why I suggested a separate list.It would give people freedom on how they want to see these messagesand would still favor non committers looking for discussions on thedev list.I'm insisting on this to help outsiders (non committers)... and I onlystarted doing that after I talked to a few non committers who thoughtour list was too cluttered.So, please.. when you think about this please think of those noncommitters looking at our list.On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
What's why I suggested a separate list.

It would give people freedom on how they want to see these messages
and would still favor non committers looking for discussions on the
dev list.

I'm insisting on this to help outsiders (non committers)... and I only
started doing that after I talked to a few non committers who thought
our list was too cluttered.

So, please.. when you think about this please think of those non
committers looking at our list.






On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM michael.andre.pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
Awesome... thanks for doing this!



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
It is showing there now...


This is been completed accordingly to Infra (Big thanks to Gavin on
the Infra team)

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:38 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't see it showing up at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/#activemq. Is that expected?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:33 AM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The new mailing list for gitbox@activemq.apache.org has been created.
> >
> > Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have submitted the request to create the list. Now we just need await
> > > confirmation of its creation.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is correct.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on
> > >> all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards
> > >> dev list.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through
> > the
> > >> > comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or
> > >> otherwise
> > >> > without any -1s) to carry out the following:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Create a new mailing list, and
> > >> > 2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> > This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please confirm or deny my understanding.
> > >> >
> > >> > Bruce
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on
> > >> https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
> > >> > >
> > >> > > named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
> > >> > > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as
> > gitbox,
> > >> > > for that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
> > >> > > believe I will need infra to help on that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
> > >> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
> > >> > > objections.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> > >> > > > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> > smartphone.
> > >> > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> > >> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > >> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> > >> messages
> > >> > > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which
> > >> is to
> > >> > > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move
> > >> generally
> > >> > > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
> > >> > > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails
> > >> are
> > >> > > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is
> > >> on
> > >> > > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
> > >> > > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I
> > said I
> > >> > > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
> > >> > > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
> > >> > > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but
> > >> wont
> > >> > > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new
> > >> list
> > >> > > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not
> > >> too
> > >> > > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the
> > >> proposal and
> > >> > > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
> > >> > > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you
> > >> might
> > >> > > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus
> > agreed
> > >> > > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn
> > >> Fri,
> > >> > > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.
> > >> If you
> > >> > > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where
> > >> we
> > >> > > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb
> > >> 21, 2019
> > >> > > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> >
> > I'm
> > >> not
> > >> > > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer
> > >> they
> > >> > > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I
> > >> also
> > >> > > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people
> > >> think much
> > >> > > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are
> > >> drowned
> > >> > > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower
> > frequency
> > >> > > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still
> > >> filter
> > >> > > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever
> > >> these
> > >> > > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now,
> > >> where I
> > >> > > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am
> > >> however
> > >> > > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions,
> > >> yes)
> > >> > > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails
> > rather
> > >> than
> > >> > > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list
> > if
> > >> > > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details
> > get
> > >> > > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in
> > the
> > >> > > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@
> > >> lists
> > >> > > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I
> > >> dont see
> > >> > > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either
> > >> issues@
> > >> > > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the
> > >> other of
> > >> > > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say
> > >> having
> > >> > > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I
> > >> wasnt in
> > >> > > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@
> > >> personally.
> > >> > > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie>
> > >> >> > On
> > >> > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
> > >> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i
> > >> disagree.
> > >> > > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions
> > >> around
> > >> > > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in
> > >> the
> > >> > > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
> > >> > > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote.
> > Sent
> > >> > > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
> > >> > > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
> > >> > > 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> > >> Subject:
> > >> > > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
> > >> wouldn't
> > >> > > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant
> > to
> > >> see
> > >> > > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as
> > >> they
> > >> > > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes.
> > That
> > >> > > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to
> > issues@
> > >> .Yes,
> > >> > > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an
> > >> existinglist,
> > >> > > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@
> > ,
> > >> > > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring
> > there,and
> > >> its a
> > >> > > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated
> > >> issue
> > >> > > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same
> > PR
> > >> > > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
> > >> > > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the>
> > >> > dev@
> > >> > > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they>
> > >> > wont
> > >> > > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe
> > needing>
> > >> > to
> > >> > > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59
> > >> people> >
> > >> > > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who
> > >> arent>
> > >> > > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being
> > >> against>
> > >> > > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens
> > >> (including
> > >> > > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of
> > the
> > >> > > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to
> > filter
> > >> it
> > >> > > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at
> > 17:08,> >
> > >> > > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>>
> > If
> > >> > > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id
> > >> actually
> > >> > > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
> > >> > > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the
> > >> same
> > >> > > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list.
> > >> E.g.
> > >> > > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want
> > the
> > >> git
> > >> > > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
> > >> > > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> --------
> > Original
> > >> > > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> >
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >> > > Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> > >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate
> > >> list I
> > >> > > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to
> > >> cheatthe
> > >> > > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the
> > >> process here
> > >> > > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the
> > >> future.
> > >> > > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what
> > >> list
> > >> > > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> >
> > >> doubts and
> > >> > > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> >
> > go
> > >> with
> > >> > > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie>
> > >
> > >> > > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why
> > >> you>
> > >> > > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@
> > ?>>
> > >> For>
> > >> > > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to>
> > >> be> >
> > >> > > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to>
> > >> the> >
> > >> > > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to>
> > >> be> >
> > >> > > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated>
> > >> which> >
> > >> > > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related.
> > >> Once> >
> > >> > > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at
> > >> which>
> > >> > > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21
> > Feb
> > >> > > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:> >>
> > >> > > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github
> > >> comments>
> > >> > > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
> > >> > > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0
> > >> on> >
> > >> > > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target
> > of
> > >> such>
> > >> > > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the
> > dev
> > >> > > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages
> > >> are just
> > >> > > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless
> > anyway).
> > >> Devs
> > >> > > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <
> > tabish121@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > >
> > >
> > >> > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list
> > >> and I>
> > >> > > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > If
> > >> > > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post
> > >> on
> > >> > > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > >
> > >> I'd go
> > >> > > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to
> > >> move> >
> > >> > > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > On
> > >> > > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <
> > >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
> > >> > > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert
> > >> Suconic <
> > >> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This
> > >> is a
> > >> > > simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > >
> > >> >>>
> > >> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters
> > them
> > >> out).
> > >> > > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can
> > >> filter
> > >> > > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> >
> > committees
> > >> > > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> >
> > >> accordingly.
> > >> > > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok
> > >> with
> > >> > > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> >
> > >> JIRA.  If
> > >> > > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> >
> > >> 7:54
> > >> > > AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >>
> > >
> > >> >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
> > >> > > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that
> > >> means
> > >> > > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > >
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
> > >> > > Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > >
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have
> > >> been>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have
> > >> updated
> > >> > > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new
> > >> list
> > >> > > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already
> > >> using> >
> > >> > > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I
> > >> would>
> > >> > > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like
> > >> issues>
> > >> > > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> > If
> > >> > > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be>
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> > >> > > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then
> > >> we can
> > >> > > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03,
> > Clebert
> > >> > > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > >
> > >>>>>>
> > >> Lazy
> > >> > > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> >
> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > >
> > >> >>>>>>> >
> > >> > > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > >
> > >> >>>>>>> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
> > >> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy
> > >> Consensus
> > >> > > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > >
> > >> >>>>>>> to
> > >> > > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number
> > of
> > >> > > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?'
> > >> isn't
> > >> > > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this
> > >> tomorrow
> > >> > > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> otherwise'.
> > >> > > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> >
> > >> >>>>
> > >> > > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list'
> > or> >
> > >> > > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you
> > used> >
> > >> > > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned
> > >> as a>
> > >> > > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>
> > I'm
> > >> -1
> > >> > > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > >
> > >>>>
> > >> > > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
> > >> > > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
> > >> > > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> >
> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a
> > >> completely
> > >> > > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly
> > >> think
> > >> > > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask
> > >> that
> > >> > > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we
> > do
> > >> so.>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too
> > think
> > >> the
> > >> > > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are
> > >> easily
> > >> > > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back
> > >> into> > >
> > >> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20
> > >> Feb
> > >> > > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> >
> > >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra
> > >> to move
> > >> > > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM
> > Clebert
> > >> > > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly
> > >> for
> > >> > > new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted
> > >> his
> > >> > > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> >
> > What
> > >> about
> > >> > > this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a
> > >> new
> > >> > > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
> > >> > > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those
> > >> they>
> > >> > > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On
> > >> Sun, Feb>
> > >> > > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
> > >> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am
> > >> also +0>
> > >> > > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and
> > >> avoid me>
> > >> > > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it
> > >> will
> > >> > > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > >
> > >> >>>>> >
> > >> > > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
> > >> > > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
> > >> > > 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>>
> > >> dev@activemq.apache.org
> > >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a
> > >> separate
> > >> > > list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in
> > >> a way
> > >> > > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > >
> > >>>>
> > >> > > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now.
> > >> Justtrying
> > >> > > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> > >> 6:58 AM
> > >> > > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with
> > >> me as
> > >> > > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either
> > addresses
> > >> or on
> > >> > > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right
> > >> now
> > >> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> >
> > >
> > >> >>>>
> > >> > > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get
> > >> tagged
> > >> > > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one
> > >> which
> > >> > > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
> > >> > > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM
> > >> Clebert
> > >> > > Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> >
> > People
> > >> are
> > >> > > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> >
> > >
> > >> >>>>
> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>>
> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also
> > would>
> > >> >
> > >> > > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be
> > >> good.> >>
> > >> > > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of
> > >> noise
> > >> > > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant
> > >> cleaning/filtering
> > >> > > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects
> > >> that
> > >> > > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>>
> > >> On
> > >> > > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on
> > this
> > >> dev>
> > >> > > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
> > >> > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let
> > >> just
> > >> > > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.
> >  Etc.>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
> > >> > > source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>>
> > >> only
> > >> > > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much
> > >> traffic.>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we
> > >> move
> > >> > > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > >
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
> > >> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
> > >> > > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>>
> > >> even> > >>
> > >> > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > >
> > >> >>>>> >
> > >> > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> >
> > >> --> >>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> -->
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> --> >
> > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>
> > -->
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > >
> > >> >>>> >
> > >> > > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim
> > >> Bish> > >>
> > >> > > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert
> > >> Suconic
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > perl -e 'print
> > >> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> > >> >
> > >> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > >> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I don't see it showing up at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/#activemq. Is that expected?


Justin

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:33 AM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The new mailing list for gitbox@activemq.apache.org has been created.
>
> Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have submitted the request to create the list. Now we just need await
> > confirmation of its creation.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on
> >> all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards
> >> dev list.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through
> the
> >> > comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or
> >> otherwise
> >> > without any -1s) to carry out the following:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Create a new mailing list, and
> >> > 2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >> >
> >> > This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.
> >> >
> >> > Please confirm or deny my understanding.
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
> >> > >
> >> > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on
> >> https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
> >> > >
> >> > > named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
> >> > > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as
> gitbox,
> >> > > for that.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
> >> > > believe I will need infra to help on that.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
> >> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
> >> > > objections.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> >> > > > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> smartphone.
> >> > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> >> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
> >> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> >> messages
> >> > > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which
> >> is to
> >> > > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move
> >> generally
> >> > > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
> >> > > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails
> >> are
> >> > > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is
> >> on
> >> > > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
> >> > > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I
> said I
> >> > > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
> >> > > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
> >> > > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but
> >> wont
> >> > > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new
> >> list
> >> > > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not
> >> too
> >> > > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the
> >> proposal and
> >> > > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
> >> > > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you
> >> might
> >> > > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus
> agreed
> >> > > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn
> >> Fri,
> >> > > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.
> >> If you
> >> > > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where
> >> we
> >> > > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb
> >> 21, 2019
> >> > > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> >
> I'm
> >> not
> >> > > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer
> >> they
> >> > > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I
> >> also
> >> > > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people
> >> think much
> >> > > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are
> >> drowned
> >> > > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower
> frequency
> >> > > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still
> >> filter
> >> > > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever
> >> these
> >> > > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now,
> >> where I
> >> > > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am
> >> however
> >> > > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions,
> >> yes)
> >> > > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails
> rather
> >> than
> >> > > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list
> if
> >> > > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details
> get
> >> > > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in
> the
> >> > > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@
> >> lists
> >> > > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I
> >> dont see
> >> > > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either
> >> issues@
> >> > > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the
> >> other of
> >> > > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say
> >> having
> >> > > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I
> >> wasnt in
> >> > > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@
> >> personally.
> >> > > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie>
> >> >> > On
> >> > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
> >> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i
> >> disagree.
> >> > > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions
> >> around
> >> > > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in
> >> the
> >> > > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
> >> > > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote.
> Sent
> >> > > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
> >> > > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
> >> > > 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> >> Subject:
> >> > > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
> >> wouldn't
> >> > > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant
> to
> >> see
> >> > > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as
> >> they
> >> > > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes.
> That
> >> > > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to
> issues@
> >> .Yes,
> >> > > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an
> >> existinglist,
> >> > > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@
> ,
> >> > > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring
> there,and
> >> its a
> >> > > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated
> >> issue
> >> > > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same
> PR
> >> > > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
> >> > > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the>
> >> > dev@
> >> > > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they>
> >> > wont
> >> > > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe
> needing>
> >> > to
> >> > > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59
> >> people> >
> >> > > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who
> >> arent>
> >> > > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being
> >> against>
> >> > > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens
> >> (including
> >> > > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of
> the
> >> > > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to
> filter
> >> it
> >> > > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at
> 17:08,> >
> >> > > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>>
> If
> >> > > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id
> >> actually
> >> > > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
> >> > > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the
> >> same
> >> > > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list.
> >> E.g.
> >> > > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want
> the
> >> git
> >> > > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
> >> > > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> --------
> Original
> >> > > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> >
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >> > > Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate
> >> list I
> >> > > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to
> >> cheatthe
> >> > > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the
> >> process here
> >> > > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the
> >> future.
> >> > > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what
> >> list
> >> > > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> >
> >> doubts and
> >> > > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> >
> go
> >> with
> >> > > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie>
> >
> >> > > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why
> >> you>
> >> > > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@
> ?>>
> >> For>
> >> > > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to>
> >> be> >
> >> > > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to>
> >> the> >
> >> > > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to>
> >> be> >
> >> > > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated>
> >> which> >
> >> > > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related.
> >> Once> >
> >> > > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at
> >> which>
> >> > > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21
> Feb
> >> > > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:> >>
> >> > > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github
> >> comments>
> >> > > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
> >> > > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0
> >> on> >
> >> > > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target
> of
> >> such>
> >> > > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the
> dev
> >> > > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages
> >> are just
> >> > > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless
> anyway).
> >> Devs
> >> > > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.>
> >> >> >
> >> > > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <
> tabish121@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > >
> >
> >> > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list
> >> and I>
> >> > > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > If
> >> > > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post
> >> on
> >> > > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > >
> >> I'd go
> >> > > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if>
> >> > >
> >> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to
> >> move> >
> >> > > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > On
> >> > > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
> >> > > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert
> >> Suconic <
> >> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This
> >> is a
> >> > > simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > >
> >> >>>
> >> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters
> them
> >> out).
> >> > > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can
> >> filter
> >> > > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> >
> committees
> >> > > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> >
> >> accordingly.
> >> > > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok
> >> with
> >> > > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> >
> >> JIRA.  If
> >> > > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> >
> >> 7:54
> >> > > AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >>
> >
> >> >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
> >> > > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that
> >> means
> >> > > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > >
> >> >>>>>
> >> > > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
> >> > > Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > >
> >> >>>>>
> >> > > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have
> >> been>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have
> >> updated
> >> > > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new
> >> list
> >> > > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already
> >> using> >
> >> > > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I
> >> would>
> >> > > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like
> >> issues>
> >> > > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> If
> >> > > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be>
> >
> >> >
> >> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> >> > > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then
> >> we can
> >> > > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > >
> >> >>>>>
> >> > > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03,
> Clebert
> >> > > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > >
> >>>>>>
> >> Lazy
> >> > > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> >
> >
> >> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > >
> >> >>>>>>> >
> >> > > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > >
> >> >>>>>>> > >
> >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
> >> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy
> >> Consensus
> >> > > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > >
> >> >>>>>>> to
> >> > > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.>
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number
> of
> >> > > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?'
> >> isn't
> >> > > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this
> >> tomorrow
> >> > > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>>
> >> otherwise'.
> >> > > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> >
> >> >>>>
> >> > > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list'
> or> >
> >> > > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you
> used> >
> >> > > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned
> >> as a>
> >> > > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>
> I'm
> >> -1
> >> > > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > >
> >>>>
> >> > > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
> >> > > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
> >> > > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> >
> >
> >> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a
> >> completely
> >> > > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly
> >> think
> >> > > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask
> >> that
> >> > > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we
> do
> >> so.>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too
> think
> >> the
> >> > > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are
> >> easily
> >> > > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > >
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back
> >> into> > >
> >> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20
> >> Feb
> >> > > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> >
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra
> >> to move
> >> > > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > >
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM
> Clebert
> >> > > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.>
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly
> >> for
> >> > > new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted
> >> his
> >> > > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> >
> What
> >> about
> >> > > this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a
> >> new
> >> > > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
> >> > > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those
> >> they>
> >> > > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On
> >> Sun, Feb>
> >> > > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
> >> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am
> >> also +0>
> >> > > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and
> >> avoid me>
> >> > > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it
> >> will
> >> > > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > >
> >> >>>>> >
> >> > > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
> >> > > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
> >> > > 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>>
> >> dev@activemq.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a
> >> separate
> >> > > list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in
> >> a way
> >> > > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > >
> >>>>
> >> > > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now.
> >> Justtrying
> >> > > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> >> 6:58 AM
> >> > > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with
> >> me as
> >> > > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either
> addresses
> >> or on
> >> > > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right
> >> now
> >> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> >
> >
> >> >>>>
> >> > > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get
> >> tagged
> >> > > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one
> >> which
> >> > > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
> >> > > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM
> >> Clebert
> >> > > Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> >
> People
> >> are
> >> > > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> >
> >
> >> >>>>
> >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>>
> >
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also
> would>
> >> >
> >> > > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be
> >> good.> >>
> >> > > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of
> >> noise
> >> > > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant
> >> cleaning/filtering
> >> > > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects
> >> that
> >> > > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>>
> >> On
> >> > > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
> >> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on
> this
> >> dev>
> >> > > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
> >> > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let
> >> just
> >> > > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.
>  Etc.>
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
> >> > > source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>>
> >> only
> >> > > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much
> >> traffic.>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we
> >> move
> >> > > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > >
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
> >> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
> >> > > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>>
> >> even> > >>
> >> > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > >
> >> >>>>> >
> >> > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> >
> >> --> >>
> >> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> -->
> >> > >> >
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> --> >
> >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>
> -->
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > >
> >> >>>> >
> >> > > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim
> >> Bish> > >>
> >> > > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert
> >> Suconic
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Clebert Suconic
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > perl -e 'print
> >> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> >> >
> >> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> >> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
The new mailing list for gitbox@activemq.apache.org has been created.

Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

Bruce

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have submitted the request to create the list. Now we just need await
> confirmation of its creation.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is correct.
>>
>>
>> After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on
>> all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards
>> dev list.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through the
>> > comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or
>> otherwise
>> > without any -1s) to carry out the following:
>> >
>> > 1) Create a new mailing list, and
>> > 2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>> >
>> > This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.
>> >
>> > Please confirm or deny my understanding.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
>> > >
>> > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on
>> https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
>> > >
>> > > named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
>> > > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox,
>> > > for that.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
>> > > believe I will need infra to help on that.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
>> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
>> > > objections.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
>> > > > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>> > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
>> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
>> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
>> messages
>> > > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which
>> is to
>> > > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move
>> generally
>> > > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
>> > > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails
>> are
>> > > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is
>> on
>> > > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
>> > > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I
>> > > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
>> > > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
>> > > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but
>> wont
>> > > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new
>> list
>> > > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not
>> too
>> > > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the
>> proposal and
>> > > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
>> > > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you
>> might
>> > > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed
>> > > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn
>> Fri,
>> > > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.
>> If you
>> > > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where
>> we
>> > > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb
>> 21, 2019
>> > > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm
>> not
>> > > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer
>> they
>> > > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I
>> also
>> > > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people
>> think much
>> > > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are
>> drowned
>> > > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency
>> > > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still
>> filter
>> > > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever
>> these
>> > > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now,
>> where I
>> > > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am
>> however
>> > > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions,
>> yes)
>> > > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather
>> than
>> > > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if
>> > > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get
>> > > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the
>> > > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@
>> lists
>> > > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I
>> dont see
>> > > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either
>> issues@
>> > > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the
>> other of
>> > > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say
>> having
>> > > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I
>> wasnt in
>> > > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@
>> personally.
>> > > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie>
>> >> > On
>> > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
>> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i
>> disagree.
>> > > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions
>> around
>> > > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in
>> the
>> > > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
>> > > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent
>> > > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
>> > > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
>> > > 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Subject:
>> > > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
>> wouldn't
>> > > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to
>> see
>> > > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as
>> they
>> > > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That
>> > > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@
>> .Yes,
>> > > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an
>> existinglist,
>> > > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@,
>> > > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and
>> its a
>> > > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated
>> issue
>> > > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR
>> > > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
>> > > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the>
>> > dev@
>> > > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they>
>> > wont
>> > > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing>
>> > to
>> > > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59
>> people> >
>> > > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who
>> arent>
>> > > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being
>> against>
>> > > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens
>> (including
>> > > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the
>> > > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter
>> it
>> > > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> >
>> > > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If
>> > > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id
>> actually
>> > > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
>> > > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the
>> same
>> > > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list.
>> E.g.
>> > > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the
>> git
>> > > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
>> > > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original
>> > > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > > Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate
>> list I
>> > > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to
>> cheatthe
>> > > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the
>> process here
>> > > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the
>> future.
>> > > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what
>> list
>> > > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> >
>> doubts and
>> > > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go
>> with
>> > > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> >
>> > > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why
>> you>
>> > > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>>
>> For>
>> > > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to>
>> be> >
>> > > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to>
>> the> >
>> > > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to>
>> be> >
>> > > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated>
>> which> >
>> > > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related.
>> Once> >
>> > > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at
>> which>
>> > > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb
>> > > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:> >>
>> > > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github
>> comments>
>> > > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
>> > > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0
>> on> >
>> > > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of
>> such>
>> > > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev
>> > > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages
>> are just
>> > > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway).
>> Devs
>> > > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.>
>> >> >
>> > > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > >
>> > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list
>> and I>
>> > > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > If
>> > > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post
>> on
>> > > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > >
>> I'd go
>> > > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if>
>> > >
>> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to
>> move> >
>> > > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > On
>> > > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
>> > > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert
>> Suconic <
>> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This
>> is a
>> > > simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > >
>> >>>
>> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them
>> out).
>> > > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can
>> filter
>> > > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees
>> > > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> >
>> accordingly.
>> > > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok
>> with
>> > > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> >
>> JIRA.  If
>> > > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> >
>> 7:54
>> > > AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> >
>> >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
>> > > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that
>> means
>> > > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > >
>> >>>>>
>> > > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
>> > > Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > >
>> >>>>>
>> > > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have
>> been>
>> > > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have
>> updated
>> > > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new
>> list
>> > > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already
>> using> >
>> > > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I
>> would>
>> > > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like
>> issues>
>> > > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If
>> > > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> >
>> >
>> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
>> > > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then
>> we can
>> > > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>
>> > > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert
>> > > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>
>> Lazy
>> > > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > >
>> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > >
>> >>>>>>> >
>> > > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > >
>> >>>>>>> > >
>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
>> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy
>> Consensus
>> > > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > >
>> >>>>>>> to
>> > > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.>
>> > >
>> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of
>> > > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?'
>> isn't
>> > > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this
>> tomorrow
>> > > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>>
>> otherwise'.
>> > > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> >
>> >>>>
>> > > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> >
>> > > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> >
>> > > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned
>> as a>
>> > > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm
>> -1
>> > > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>>
>> > > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
>> > > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
>> > > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > >
>> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a
>> completely
>> > > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly
>> think
>> > > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
>> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask
>> that
>> > > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do
>> so.>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think
>> the
>> > > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are
>> easily
>> > > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > >
>> >>>>>>>
>> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back
>> into> > >
>> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20
>> Feb
>> > > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> >
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra
>> to move
>> > > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > >
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert
>> > > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.>
>> > >
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly
>> for
>> > > new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted
>> his
>> > > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What
>> about
>> > > this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a
>> new
>> > > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
>> > > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those
>> they>
>> > > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On
>> Sun, Feb>
>> > > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
>> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am
>> also +0>
>> > > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and
>> avoid me>
>> > > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it
>> will
>> > > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > >
>> >>>>> >
>> > > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
>> > > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
>> > > 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>>
>> dev@activemq.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a
>> separate
>> > > list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in
>> a way
>> > > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>>
>> > > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now.
>> Justtrying
>> > > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
>> 6:58 AM
>> > > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with
>> me as
>> > > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses
>> or on
>> > > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right
>> now
>> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > >
>> >>>>
>> > > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get
>> tagged
>> > > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one
>> which
>> > > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
>> > > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM
>> Clebert
>> > > Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People
>> are
>> > > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > >
>> >>>>
>> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> >
>> > >
>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would>
>> >
>> > > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be
>> good.> >>
>> > > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of
>> noise
>> > > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant
>> cleaning/filtering
>> > > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects
>> that
>> > > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>>
>> On
>> > > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
>> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this
>> dev>
>> > > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
>> > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let
>> just
>> > > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.>
>> > >
>> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
>> > > source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>>
>> only
>> > > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much
>> traffic.>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we
>> move
>> > > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >>
>> > >
>> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
>> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
>> > > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>>
>> even> > >>
>> > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > >
>> >>>>> >
>> > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> >
>> --> >>
>> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> -->
>> > >> >
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> --> >
>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> -->
>> > >
>> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > >
>> >>>> >
>> > > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim
>> Bish> > >>
>> > > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert
>> Suconic
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > perl -e 'print
>> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>> >
>> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
I have submitted the request to create the list. Now we just need await
confirmation of its creation.

Bruce

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That is correct.
>
>
> After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on
> all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards
> dev list.
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through the
> > comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or otherwise
> > without any -1s) to carry out the following:
> >
> > 1) Create a new mailing list, and
> > 2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >
> > This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.
> >
> > Please confirm or deny my understanding.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
> > >
> > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on
> https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
> > >
> > > named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
> > > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox,
> > > for that.
> > >
> > >
> > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
> > > believe I will need infra to help on that.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
> > > objections.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> > > > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> messages
> > > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which
> is to
> > > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move
> generally
> > > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
> > > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are
> > > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on
> > > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
> > > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I
> > > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
> > > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
> > > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont
> > > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list
> > > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too
> > > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the
> proposal and
> > > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
> > > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you
> might
> > > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed
> > > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn
> Fri,
> > > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.
> If you
> > > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we
> > > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21,
> 2019
> > > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm
> not
> > > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they
> > > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also
> > > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think
> much
> > > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are
> drowned
> > > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency
> > > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still
> filter
> > > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever
> these
> > > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where
> I
> > > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am
> however
> > > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions,
> yes)
> > > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather
> than
> > > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if
> > > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get
> > > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the
> > > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists
> > > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont
> see
> > > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either
> issues@
> > > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the
> other of
> > > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say
> having
> > > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I
> wasnt in
> > > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@
> personally.
> > > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >>
> > On
> > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i
> disagree.
> > > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions
> around
> > > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the
> > > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
> > > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent
> > > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
> > > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
> > > 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject:
> > > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
> wouldn't
> > > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to
> see
> > > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as
> they
> > > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That
> > > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@
> .Yes,
> > > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an
> existinglist,
> > > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@,
> > > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and
> its a
> > > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue
> > > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR
> > > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
> > > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> >
> dev@
> > > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> >
> wont
> > > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing>
> > to
> > > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59
> people> >
> > > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who
> arent>
> > > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being
> against>
> > > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens
> (including
> > > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the
> > > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter
> it
> > > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> >
> > > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If
> > > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id
> actually
> > > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
> > > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same
> > > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.
> > > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the
> git
> > > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
> > > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original
> > > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list
> I
> > > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to
> cheatthe
> > > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process
> here
> > > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the
> future.
> > > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what
> list
> > > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> >
> doubts and
> > > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go
> with
> > > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> >
> > > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why
> you>
> > > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>>
> For>
> > > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to>
> be> >
> > > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to>
> the> >
> > > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be>
> >
> > > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated>
> which> >
> > > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related.
> Once> >
> > > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at
> which>
> > > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb
> > > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:>
> >>
> > > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github
> comments>
> > > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
> > > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on>
> >
> > > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of
> such>
> > > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev
> > > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are
> just
> > > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway).
> Devs
> > > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.>
> >> >
> > > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > >
> > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list
> and I>
> > > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > >
> If
> > > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on
> > > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > >
> I'd go
> > > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> >
> >
> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to
> move> >
> > > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> On
> > > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
> > > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert
> Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is
> a
> > > simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>>
> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them
> out).
> > > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can
> filter
> > > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees
> > > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> >
> accordingly.
> > > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok
> with
> > > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> >
> JIRA.  If
> > > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> >
> 7:54
> > > AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> >
> >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
> > > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that
> means
> > > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > >
> >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
> > > Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > >
> >>>>>
> > > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have
> been>
> > > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have
> updated
> > > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list
> > > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already
> using> >
> > > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I
> would>
> > > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like
> issues>
> > > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If
> > > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > >
> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> > > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we
> can
> > > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>
> > > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert
> > > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>
> Lazy
> > > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > >
> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > >
> >>>>>>> >
> > > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>>
> > >
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy
> Consensus
> > > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > >
> >>>>>>> to
> > > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> >
> >
> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of
> > > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?'
> isn't
> > > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this
> tomorrow
> > > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>>
> otherwise'.
> > > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> >
> >>>>
> > > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> >
> > > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> >
> > > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as
> a>
> > > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm
> -1
> > > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>>
> > > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
> > > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
> > > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > >
> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a
> completely
> > > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly
> think
> > > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that
> > > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do
> so.>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think
> the
> > > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are
> easily
> > > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > >
> >>>>>>>
> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into>
> > >
> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb
> > > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> >
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to
> move
> > > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > >
> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert
> > > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> >
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly
> for
> > > new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted
> his
> > > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What
> about
> > > this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new
> > > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
> > > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those
> they>
> > > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun,
> Feb>
> > > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also
> +0>
> > > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and
> avoid me>
> > > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it
> will
> > > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > >
> >>>>> >
> > > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
> > > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
> > > 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a
> separate
> > > list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a
> way
> > > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>>
> > > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now.
> Justtrying
> > > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> 6:58 AM
> > > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with
> me as
> > > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses
> or on
> > > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now
> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > >
> >>>>
> > > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get
> tagged
> > > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one
> which
> > > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
> > > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM
> Clebert
> > > Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People
> are
> > > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > >
> >>>>
> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> >
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> >
> > > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be
> good.> >>
> > > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of
> noise
> > > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant
> cleaning/filtering
> > > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that
> > > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On
> > > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this
> dev>
> > > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
> > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let
> just
> > > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.>
> > >
> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
> > > source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>>
> only
> > > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much
> traffic.>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we
> move
> > > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >>
> > >
> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
> > > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even>
> > >>
> > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > >
> >>>>> >
> > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > -->
> >>
> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> >
> >> >
> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>
> --> >
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> -->
> > >
> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > >
> >>>> >
> > > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish>
> > >>
> > > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert
> Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
That is correct.


After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on
all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards
dev list.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through the
> comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or otherwise
> without any -1s) to carry out the following:
>
> 1) Create a new mailing list, and
> 2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>
> This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.
>
> Please confirm or deny my understanding.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
> >
> > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
> >
> > named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >
> >
> > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
> > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox,
> > for that.
> >
> >
> > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
> > believe I will need infra to help on that.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
> > objections.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> > > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to
> > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally
> > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
> > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are
> > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on
> > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
> > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I
> > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
> > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
> > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont
> > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list
> > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too
> > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and
> > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
> > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might
> > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed
> > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri,
> > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you
> > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we
> > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019
> > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm not
> > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they
> > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also
> > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much
> > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned
> > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency
> > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter
> > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these
> > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I
> > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however
> > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes)
> > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than
> > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if
> > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get
> > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the
> > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists
> > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see
> > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@
> > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of
> > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having
> > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in
> > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally.
> > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On
> > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i disagree.
> > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions around
> > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the
> > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
> > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent
> > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
> > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
> > 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject:
> > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I wouldn't
> > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to see
> > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as they
> > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That
> > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes,
> > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an existinglist,
> > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@,
> > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and its a
> > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue
> > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR
> > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
> > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > dev@
> > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > wont
> > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing> > to
> > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people> >
> > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent>
> > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against>
> > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including
> > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the
> > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it
> > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> >
> > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If
> > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually
> > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
> > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same
> > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.
> > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the git
> > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
> > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original
> > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
> > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to cheatthe
> > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process here
> > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the future.
> > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what list
> > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > doubts and
> > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go with
> > issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> >
> > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you>
> > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For>
> > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be> >
> > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the> >
> > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be> >
> > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which> >
> > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once> >
> > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which>
> > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb
> > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>
> > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments>
> > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
> > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on> >
> > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such>
> > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev
> > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just
> > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs
> > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> >
> > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > >
> > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I>
> > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If
> > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on
> > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go
> > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > >
> > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> >
> > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On
> > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
> > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a
> > simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>>
> > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them out).
> > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can filter
> > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees
> > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > accordingly.
> > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok with
> > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > JIRA.  If
> > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > 7:54
> > AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
> > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means
> > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
> > Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>>
> > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been>
> > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated
> > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list
> > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using> >
> > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would>
> > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues>
> > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If
> > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > >
> > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can
> > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert
> > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy
> > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > >
> > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> >
> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > >
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus
> > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to
> > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > >
> > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of
> > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' isn't
> > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this tomorrow
> > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> otherwise'.
> > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
> > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > >>>>
> > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> >
> > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> >
> > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a>
> > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1
> > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>>
> > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
> > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
> > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > >
> > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely
> > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think
> > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
> > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that
> > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do so.>
> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think the
> > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily
> > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>>
> > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into> > >
> > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb
> > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to move
> > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert
> > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
> > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly for
> > new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted his
> > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What about
> > this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new
> > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
> > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they>
> > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb>
> > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0>
> > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me>
> > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will
> > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>> >
> > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
> > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
> > 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate
> > list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way
> > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>>
> > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying
> > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM
> > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with me as
> > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on
> > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now
> > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > >>>>
> > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get tagged
> > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one which
> > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
> > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM Clebert
> > Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are
> > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>>
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> > > >
> > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> >
> > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >>
> > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise
> > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering
> > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that
> > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On
> > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev>
> > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
> > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let just
> > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > >
> > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
> > source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> only
> > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much traffic.>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we move
> > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
> > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
> > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >>
> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>> >
> > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >>
> > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> >
> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> >
> > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > >
> > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> >
> > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >>
> > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through the
comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or otherwise
without any -1s) to carry out the following:

1) Create a new mailing list, and
2) The new mailing list should be named gitbox@activemq.apache.org

This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages.

Please confirm or deny my understanding.

Bruce

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.
>
> @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on https://infra.apache.org/mail.html
>
> named gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>
>
> When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
> activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox,
> for that.
>
>
> and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
> believe I will need infra to help on that.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >
> >
> > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for
> objections.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To:
> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to
> say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally
> (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no
> bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are
> not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on
> issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people
> interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I
> wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared
> tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move
> themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont
> objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list
> ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too
> bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and
> knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You
> suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might
> usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed
> forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri,
> 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you
> would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we
> place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019
> at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm not
> sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they
> remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also
> dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much
> lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned
> out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency
> discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter
> all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these
> PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I
> too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however
> saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes)
> and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than
> a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if
> moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get
> updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the
> issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists
> for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see
> that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@
> or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of
> those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having
> them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in
> favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally.
> I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On
> Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i disagree.
> The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions around
> details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the
> dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> >
> there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent
> from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message
> --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date:
> 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject:
> Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I wouldn't
> entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to see
> general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as they
> arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That
> would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes,
> moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an existinglist,
> which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@,
> there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and its a
> list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue
> traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR
> comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks
> receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > dev@
> traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > wont
> really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing> > to
> adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people> >
> subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent>
> > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against>
> > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including
> a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the
> specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it
> all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> >
> michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If
> (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually
> be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing
> list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same
> arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.
> what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the git
> noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the
> problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original
> message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I
> made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to cheatthe
> process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process here
> to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the future.
> Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what list
> we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > doubts and
> I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go with
> issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> >
> Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you>
> > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For>
> > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be> >
> disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the> >
> changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be> >
> before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which> >
> comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once> >
> all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which>
> > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb
> 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>
> > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments>
> > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> >
> gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on> >
> this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such>
> > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev
> list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just
> noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs
> who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> >
> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > >
> Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I>
> > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If
> you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on
> the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go
> with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > >
> we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> >
> > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On
> Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with
> that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a
> simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>>
> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them out).
> I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can filter
> them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees
> looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > accordingly.
> I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok with
> everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > JIRA.  If
> not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > 7:54
> AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> >
> suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means
> a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44,
> Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>>
> I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been>
> > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated
> the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list
> called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using> >
> https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would>
> > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues>
> > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If
> enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > >
> >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy
> consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can
> ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert
> Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy
> consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > >
> >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>>
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus
> normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to
> agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > >
> >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of
> days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' isn't
> quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this tomorrow
> unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> otherwise'.
> You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>>
> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > >>>>
> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> >
> 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> >
> throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a>
> > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1
> on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>>
> PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@"
> already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved
> previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > >
> >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely
> new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think
> using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > >
> >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that
> Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do so.>
> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think the
> messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily
> filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>>
> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into> > >
> >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb
> 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to move
> the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert
> Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > >
> >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly for
> new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted his
> opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What about
> this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new
> list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> >
> directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they>
> > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb>
> > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> >
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0>
> > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me>
> > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will
> all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>> >
> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From:
> Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date:
> 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate
> list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way
> I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>>
> putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying
> to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM
> Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with me as
> it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on
> subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now
> obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > >>>>
> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get tagged
> with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one which
> solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have>
> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM Clebert
> Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are
> probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> > > >
> >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> >
> like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >>
> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise
> in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering
> and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that
> interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On
> Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>>
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev>
> > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > >
> suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let just
> people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > >
> >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open
> source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> only
> subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much traffic.>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we move
> GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> >
> important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> >
> Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >>
> > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>> >
> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >>
> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> >
> >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > >
> >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> >
> > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >>
> >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair.

@Bruce Snyder can you create a list on https://infra.apache.org/mail.html

named gitbox@activemq.apache.org


When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for
activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as gitbox,
for that.


and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I
believe I will need infra to help on that.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>
>
> If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for objections.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing> > to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people> > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent> > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against> > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you> > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For> > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be> > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the> > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be> > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which> > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once> > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which> > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on> > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such> > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using> > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would> > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues> > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a> > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they> > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb> > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0> > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me> > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>> > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> > > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >> > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Ok, so far the best choice is gitbox@activemq.apache.org


If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for objections.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing> > to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people> > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent> > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against> > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you> > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For> > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be> > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the> > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be> > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which> > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once> > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which> > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on> > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such> > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using> > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would> > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues> > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a> > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they> > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb> > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0> > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me> > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>> > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> > > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >> > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 22/02/2019  18:53  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is on issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> wrote:>> > I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> >> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > >> > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing> > to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people> > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent> > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against> > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,> > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you> > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For> > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be> > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the> > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be> > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which> > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once> > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which> > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on> > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such> > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using> > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would> > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues> > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or> > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used> > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a> > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters> > personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they> > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb> > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0> > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me> > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>> > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>> > > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would> > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I> > propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >> > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which is to say I dont
think we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move generally (as
I can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no big
deal).

I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails are not commits mails.

I think the mails relate very closely with what is on issues@
currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people interested
in one set should already be follwing both sets, so I said I would
personally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared to
think the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move the
mails.

Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but wont object
to it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new list if
the mails move.

If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not too bothered where
they go so long as folks get clear notice of the proposal and known
period to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You suggested
gitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you might use
that so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus agreed for
going with it if noone replies discussing things further.

Robbie

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you would
> rather -1 please say so.
>
> Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post
> your preference?
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd
> > prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0
> > hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other
> > people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like
> > this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like
> > these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.
> > Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff
> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)
> > into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on
> > things from them.
> >
> > I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic
> > (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing
> > issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need
> > be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the
> > comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly
> > contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two
> > non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of
> > content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development
> > to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at
> > just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.
> > Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place
> > already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,
> > I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing
> > otherwise however).
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce
> > <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are
> > discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having
> > them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its
> > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from
> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described
> > is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues
> > traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically
> > differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related
> > PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more
> > traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However,
> > distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be
> > occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of
> > highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated
> > withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany
> > folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the
> > dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they
> > wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing
> > to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people
> > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent
> > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against
> > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a
> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific
> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into
> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,
> > michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0
> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be
> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By
> > moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having
> > it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i
> > signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to
> > filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> > smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not
> > intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about
> > the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in
> > the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to
> > what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any
> > doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets
> > go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie
> > Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you
> > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For
> > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be
> > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the
> > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be
> > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which
> > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once
> > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which
> > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019
> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I
> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are
> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with
> > gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on
> > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such
> > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list.
> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise,
> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like
> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb
> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >
> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this
> > message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.
> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list
> > please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this
> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep
> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all
> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just
> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM
> > Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>
> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb
> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >>
> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be
> > a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone
> > just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev
> > list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non
> > committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA
> > accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you
> > ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>
> > JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at
> > 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >
> > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to
> > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a
> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >
> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie
> > Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we
> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>>
> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > >
> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?
> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using
> > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would
> > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues
> > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough
> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to
> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>>
> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > >
> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the
> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was
> > ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA
> > to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24
> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >
> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> >
> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action
> > before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been
> > around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should
> > we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm
> > doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >
> > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >
> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >
> > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or
> > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used
> > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a
> > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on
> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > >
> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where
> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between
> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better
> > destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >
> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be
> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have
> > posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off
> > moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the
> > overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >
> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > >
> > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just
> > filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going
> > originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On
> > Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus
> > and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the
> > commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,
> > 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters
> > personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more
> > friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just
> > posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to
> > a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email
> > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they
> > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb
> > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>
> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0
> > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me
> > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all
> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>
> > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert
> > Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39
> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss]
> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can
> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a
> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of
> > someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new
> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>
> > because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters>
> > > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github
> > traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have
> > filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub
> > related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is
> > a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email
> > providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20
> > AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>
> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >
> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would
> > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >
> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in
> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it
> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me
> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019
> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily
> > basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in
> > the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>
> > stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >
> > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy
> > who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >
> > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I
> > propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>
> > > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and
> > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.
> > Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >
> > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>
> > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> >
> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >
> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > >
> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>
> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> >
> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> >
> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose.  If you would
rather -1 please say so.

Or, Say we separate the list where we place these messages? Can you post
your preference?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd
> prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0
> hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other
> people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like
> this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like
> these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.
> Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff
> (dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)
> into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on
> things from them.
>
> I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic
> (discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing
> issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need
> be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the
> comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly
> contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two
> non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of
> content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development
> to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at
> just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.
> Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place
> already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,
> I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing
> otherwise however).
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce
> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are
> discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having
> them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its
> there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from
> my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To:
> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described
> is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues
> traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically
> differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related
> PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more
> traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However,
> distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be
> occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of
> highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated
> withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany
> folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the
> dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they
> wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing
> to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people
> subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent
> so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against
> using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a
> new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific
> change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into
> one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08,
> michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0
> on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be
> against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By
> moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having
> it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i
> signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to
> filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To:
> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not
> intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about
> the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in
> the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to
> what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any
> doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets
> go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie
> Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you
> think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For
> me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be
> disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the
> changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be
> before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which
> comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once
> all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which
> point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019
> at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I
> would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are
> not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with
> gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on
> this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such
> changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list.
> The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise,
> that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like
> them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb
> 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > >
> On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this
> message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.
> So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list
> please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this
> moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep
> them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all
> but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just
> fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM
> Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>
> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb
> 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >>
> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be
> a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone
> just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev
> list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non
> committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA
> accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you
> ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>
> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at
> 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > >
> >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to
> suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a
> suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > >
> >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie
> Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we
> should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>>
> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > >
> >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called?
> Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using
> https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would
> just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues
> traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough
> folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to
> agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>>
> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > >
> >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the
> overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was
> ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA
> to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24
> AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > >
> >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> >
> > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action
> before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been
> around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should
> we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm
> doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >
> >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >
> > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >
> >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or
> 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used
> throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a
> 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on
> using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > >
> >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where
> the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between
> those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better
> destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be
> it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have
> posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off
> moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the
> overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >
> >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > >
> >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just
> filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going
> originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On
> Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus
> and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the
> commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,
> 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters
> personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more
> friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just
> posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>
> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to
> a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email
> directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they
> can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb
> 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0
> on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me
> having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all
> come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>>
> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert
> Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39
> (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss]
> automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can
> do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a
> feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of
> someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new
> people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>
> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters>
> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github
> traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have
> filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub
> related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is
> a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email
> providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20
> AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>
> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >
> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>>
> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would
> like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> >
> >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in
> the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it
> is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me
> and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019
> at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily
> basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in
> the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>
> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >
> >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy
> who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >
> much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I
> propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>
> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and
> important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.
> Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > >
> > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>>
> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> >
> > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >
> >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > >
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>
> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> >
> > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> >
> Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'm not sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd
prefer they remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0
hehe). I also dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other
people think much lower frequency general discussion threads (like
this one) are drowned out by the PR comment mails and so would like
these lower frequency discussions left on dev@ on their own.
Personally, I will still filter all the traditional old dev stuff
(dev@, issues@, and wherever these PR mails ultimately end up going)
into one place as I do now, where I too like to follow and pick up on
things from them.

I am however saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic
(discussions, yes) and are very related+similar to the existing
issues@ mails rather than a distinct stream of conversation that need
be on their own list if moved from dev@. Especially given many of the
comment details get updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly
contained in the issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two
non-dev@ lists for such highly related and very similar volumes of
content. I dont see that anyone interested enough in our development
to follow either issues@ or dev@ currently should really be looking at
just one or the other of those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.
Which again I say having them all filtered into the same place
already. (To be clear, I wasnt in favour of issues@ existing either,
I'd have it all on dev@ personally. I'm not one of those proposing
otherwise however).

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
So here i disagree. The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are discussions around details of development. And actually i quite like having them in the dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  17:49  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that peoplewant to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues traffic,largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically differentvolumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related PRcomments to issues@.Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic to an existinglist, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct fromdev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highlyrelated issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated withthe same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the dev@ traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they wont really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chipin about it, as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:>> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I wouldn't entirely agree there. The issue as described is that people
want to see general dev@ discussions separate from issues traffic,
largely as they arent entirely related and have dramatically different
volumes. That would be resolved by moving the issue related PR
comments to issues@.

Yes, moving it to issues@ would then move more traffic to an existing
list, which some folks might want to filter. However, distinct from
dev@, there arent general discussisons that might be occurring there,
and its a list which is already receiving a similar set of highly
related issue traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated with
the same PR comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there are
many folks receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent already
receiving the dev@ traffic and already handling both just how they
want, such that they wont really care about receiving both sets via
issues@ (and maybe needing to adjust an existing filter if they do
filter already). There are 59 people subscribed to issues@, and I
expect most of them are committers who arent so likely to be bothered
by the move.

All that said, besides being against using commits@, I'm actually not
too bothered which happens (including a new list, or leaving it as-is)
so long as people get notice of the specific change and time to chip
in about it, as im going to filter it all back into one pot anyway.

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 17:08, michael.andre.pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
If (+0 on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id actually be against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing list.Reasoning:By moving it to an alternative existing list the same arguement for not having it on dev can apply to then that list. E.g.  what if i just want what i signed up to before and i dont want the git noise, but i dont want to filter.All its doing is moving the problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 21/02/2019  16:05  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheatthe process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.orgOn Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@?>> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments> > are not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the> > > > Jira so this moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move> > > since mail filters work just fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote:> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update> > > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear> > > >>>> period> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > > >>>> properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > >>>> PRs> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same> > > >>>> applies in> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to  a new list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > >>>> smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> --> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> --> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>> > > >> --> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim Bish> > >> >> >> > --> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not intend to cheat
the process or anything.

I don't want to talk too much about the process here to not diverge
the discussion, as I will be more careful in the future. Don't worry
about that part.


I don't have a strong feeling to what list we're moving. I thought
moving to its own list would clear any doubts and I suggested a new
list for that.


If issues satisfy everybody lets go with issues@apache.activemq.org

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie Gemmell
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to
> commits@ but not issues@?
>
> For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to
> be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to
> the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to
> be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated
> which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite
> related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get
> pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments
> > are not always related to JIRA.
> >
> > I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org
> >
> >
> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal
> > with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other
> > non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it
> > easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter
> > out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to
> > subscribe the appropriate list.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> > > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
> > > > Jira so this moves on.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if
> > > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move
> > > since mail filters work just fine.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> > > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> > > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Robbie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > > >>>>> things to use it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Robbie
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > > >>>> period
> > > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
> > > >>>> but
> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > > >>>> suggests
> > > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
> > > >>>> properly
> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
> > > >>>> PRs
> > > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> > > >>>> JIRA
> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > >>>>>>> list.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
> > > >>>> where
> > > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
> > > >>>> applies in
> > > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Robbie
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people
> > > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
> > > >>>> just joining)
> > > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
> > > >>>> to  a new list.
> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
> > > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
> > > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> > > >>>> smartphone.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> > > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
> > > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
> > > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
> > > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
> > > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
> > > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
> > > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
> > > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
> > > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
> > > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
> > > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
> > > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
> > > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
> > > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
> > > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
> > > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
> > > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
> > > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
> > > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
> > > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
> > > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
> > > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim Bish
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Can you elaborate on why you think the mails are better related to
commits@ but not issues@?

For me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to
be disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to
the changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to
be before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated
which comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite
related. Once all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get
pushed, at which point it ends up with a mail on commits@.

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments
> are not always related to JIRA.
>
> I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org
>
>
> @Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal
> with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other
> non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it
> easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter
> out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to
> subscribe the appropriate list.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> > > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
> > > Jira so this moves on.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if
> > we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move
> > since mail filters work just fine.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> > >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
> > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> > >>>
> > >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> > >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robbie
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > >>>>> things to use it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Robbie
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > >>>> period
> > >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
> > >>>> but
> > >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > >>>> suggests
> > >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
> > >>>> properly
> > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
> > >>>> PRs
> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> > >>>> JIRA
> > >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > >>>>>>> list.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
> > >>>> where
> > >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
> > >>>> applies in
> > >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Robbie
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people
> > >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
> > >>>> just joining)
> > >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
> > >>>> to  a new list.
> > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
> > >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
> > >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> > >>>> smartphone.
> > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> > >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
> > >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
> > >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
> > >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
> > >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
> > >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
> > >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
> > >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
> > >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
> > >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
> > >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
> > >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
> > >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
> > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
> > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
> > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
> > >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
> > >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
> > >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
> > >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
> > >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
> > >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
> > >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
> > >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
> > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
> > >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
> > >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
> > >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
> > >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
> > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>> --
> > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I would prefer either commits or its own list, those github comments
are not always related to JIRA.

I would go with gitbox@activemq.apache.org


@Tim Bish I understand you +0 on this. as I said I can myself deal
with filters.. but the target of such changes is for users and other
non committers looking at the dev list. The noise doesn't make it
easy. (Those gitbox messages are just noise, that i have to filter
out.. so they are useless anyway). Devs who like them will be able to
subscribe the appropriate list.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> > agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
> >
> >
> > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
> > Jira so this moves on.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if
> we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move
> since mail filters work just fine.
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> >>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
> >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> >>>
> >>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> >>>
> >>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> >>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> >>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> >>>>
> >>>> Robbie
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> >>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> >>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> >>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> >>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> >>>>> things to use it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> >>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> >>>> period
> >>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> >>>> suggests
> >>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> >>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
> >>>> properly
> >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> >>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
> >>>> PRs
> >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> >>>> JIRA
> >>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> >>>>>>> list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> >>>> should
> >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
> >>>> where
> >>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
> >>>> applies in
> >>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> same place they were going originally.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> >>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people
> >>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
> >>>> just joining)
> >>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
> >>>> to  a new list.
> >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> >>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
> >>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
> >>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
> >>>> smartphone.
> >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> >>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
> >>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
> >>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
> >>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
> >>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
> >>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
> >>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
> >>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
> >>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
> >>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
> >>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
> >>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
> >>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
> >>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
> >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
> >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
> >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
> >>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
> >>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
> >>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
> >>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
> >>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
> >>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
> >>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
> >>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
> >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
> >>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
> >>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
> >>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
> >>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
> >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
> agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.
>
>
> If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
> Jira so this moves on.
>
> Thanks.

I'd go with issues@ to keep them on the same list as the JIRA mails if 
we have to move them at all but as others I'm +0 on the need to move 
since mail filters work just fine.


>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
>>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
>>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
>>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
>>>
>>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
>>>
>>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
>>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
>>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
>>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
>>>>> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
>>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
>>>>> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
>>>>> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
>>>>> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
>>>>> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
>>>>> things to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
>>>>>> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
>>>> period
>>>>>>> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
>>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
>>>> but
>>>>>>> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
>>>>>>> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
>>>> suggests
>>>>>>> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
>>>>>>> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
>>>> properly
>>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
>>>> the
>>>>>>> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
>>>>>>> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
>>>> PRs
>>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
>>>> that
>>>>>>> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
>>>> should
>>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
>>>> to
>>>>>>> hold off moving things while we do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
>>>> where
>>>>>>> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
>>>> applies in
>>>>>>> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
>>>> the
>>>>>>> same place they were going originally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
>>>>>>>> messages to the commit message.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more friendly for new people
>>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
>>>> just joining)
>>>>>>>>> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
>>>> to  a new list.
>>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
>>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
>>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
>>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
>>>> smartphone.
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
>>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
>>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
>>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
>>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
>>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
>>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
>>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
>>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
>>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
>>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
>>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
>>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
>>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
>>>>> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
>>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
>>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
>>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
>>>>> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
>>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
>>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
>>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
>>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
>>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
>>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
>>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
>>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
>>>>> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
>>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
>>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>

-- 
Tim Bish

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Robbie.  I sent this message on feb-14.  JB suggested commit list and I
agreed with him.  So I assumed consensus.


If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on the
Jira so this moves on.

Thanks.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
>> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
>> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
>>
>> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
>>
>> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
>> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
>>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
>>>
>>> Robbie
>>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
>>> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
>>> > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
>>> >
>>> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
>>> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
>>> >
>>> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
>>> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
>>> > things to use it.
>>> >
>>> > Robbie
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
>>> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
>>> > >
>>> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
>>> period
>>> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
>>> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days,
>>> but
>>> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
>>> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
>>> suggests
>>> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
>>> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really
>>> properly
>>> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
>>> the
>>> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
>>> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on
>>> PRs
>>> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
>>> JIRA
>>> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
>>> that
>>> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
>>> > > > list.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
>>> should
>>> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
>>> to
>>> > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
>>> where
>>> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same
>>> applies in
>>> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
>>> the
>>> > > > same place they were going originally.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Robbie
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
>>> > > > > messages to the commit message.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
>>> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people
>>> joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone
>>> just joining)
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
>>> to  a new list.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
>>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than
>>> adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,
>>> it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
>>> smartphone.
>>> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
>>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github
>>> messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.
>>> So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am
>>> putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to
>>> make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher
>>> Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this
>>> because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters
>>> on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic
>>> right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels
>>> setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with
>>> one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.
>>> I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,
>>> 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>>
>>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to
>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think
>>> that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > >
>>> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> >
>>> > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >>
>>> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev
>>> list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing
>>> this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out
>>> stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to
>>> recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who
>>> only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.>
>>> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub>
>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could
>>> leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > >
>>> > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> >
>>> even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >
>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> >
>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > --
>>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Clebert Suconic
>>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
>
> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
>
> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the
> JIRA.  If not please let Me know.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
>> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
>> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
>> > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
>> >
>> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
>> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
>> >
>> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
>> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
>> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
>> > things to use it.
>> >
>> > Robbie
>> >
>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
>> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
>> > >
>> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
>> period
>> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
>> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
>> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
>> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
>> suggests
>> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
>> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
>> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was
>> the
>> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
>> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
>> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
>> JIRA
>> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say
>> that
>> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
>> > > > list.
>> > > >
>> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
>> should
>> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra
>> to
>> > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine
>> where
>> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies
>> in
>> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
>> the
>> > > > same place they were going originally.
>> > > >
>> > > > Robbie
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
>> > > > > messages to the commit message.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining
>> in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
>> joining)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages
>> to  a new list.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate,
>> and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
>> all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
>> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
>> on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
>> way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
>> myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
>> easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
>> way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
>> addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
>> obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
>> gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
>> and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
>> most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
>> 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
>> are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
>> Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
>> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
>> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
>> messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
>> cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
>> that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
>> 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>>
>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
>> some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
>> to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
>> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
>> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
>> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
>> follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
>> list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
>> important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
>> decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
>> clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
>> --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
So it could be said there was [lazy] consensus at the time, at what
reasonable point in the future might you proceed to do that? This time
tomorrow?

On the actual suggestion, I still prefer issues@ as it seems like
issue traffic to me, but I'd be fine with gitbox@ also. I'm only
really against using commits@.

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:33, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> lets make it simple:
>
> I suggest we create a list called gitbox@activemq.apache.org, and move
> the traffic from gitbox/github discussions there.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19 AM Robbie Gemmell
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Comments inline
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal.
> >
> > Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I
> > only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using
> > commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated
> > timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address
> > this.
> >
> > If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy
> > consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do
> > and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and
> > lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I
> > wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all.
> >
> > As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw
> > that was what you had already requested without saying that
> > previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR
> > comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me.
> >
> > > Those
> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out).
> >
> > Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I
> > wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list,
> > I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently
> > alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails
> > moved over to issues@a.a.o).
> >
> > >I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> > > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> > >
> >
> > I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them
> > there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been
> > mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving.
> >
> > > I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> > >
> >
> > What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good
> > to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think.
> > It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask
> > tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have
> > sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually
> > care what its called.
> >
> > The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days
> > to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the
> > way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years.
> >
> > > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA.
> > > If not please let Me know.
> >
> > I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your
> > decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or
> > suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet.
> >
> > As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an
> > existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think
> > commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred
> > instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once
> > censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it.
> >
> > After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed
> > with the redirection to the target list.
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > > > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > > > email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > > >
> > > > Robbie
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > > > > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > > > > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > > > > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > > > > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > > > >
> > > > > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > > > > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > > > > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > > > > things to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robbie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > > > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > > > period
> > > > > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > > > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > > > > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > > > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > > > suggests
> > > > > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > > > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > > > > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > > > > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > > > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > > > > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > > > > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > > > > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > > > > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies
> > > > in
> > > > > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same place they were going originally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robbie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > > > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining
> > > > in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
> > > > joining)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to
> > > > a new list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate,
> > > > and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
> > > > all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > > > on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> > > > way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> > > > myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> > > > easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> > > > way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> > > > addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
> > > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> > > > gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> > > > and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> > > > most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> > > > 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
> > > > are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
> > > > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
> > > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > > > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
> > > > messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
> > > > cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> > > > that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
> > > > 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> >
> > > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
> > > > some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
> > > > to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
> > > > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
> > > > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
> > > > is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
> > > > follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
> > > > list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
> > > > important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
> > > > decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
> > > > clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
> > > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
lets make it simple:

I suggest we create a list called gitbox@activemq.apache.org, and move
the traffic from gitbox/github discussions there.



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19 AM Robbie Gemmell
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments inline
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal.
>
> Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I
> only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using
> commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated
> timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address
> this.
>
> If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy
> consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do
> and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and
> lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I
> wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all.
>
> As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw
> that was what you had already requested without saying that
> previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR
> comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me.
>
> > Those
> > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out).
>
> Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I
> wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list,
> I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently
> alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails
> moved over to issues@a.a.o).
>
> >I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
> >
>
> I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them
> there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been
> mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving.
>
> > I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
> >
>
> What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good
> to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think.
> It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask
> tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have
> sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually
> care what its called.
>
> The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days
> to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the
> way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years.
>
> > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA.
> > If not please let Me know.
>
> I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your
> decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or
> suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet.
>
> As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an
> existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think
> commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred
> instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once
> censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it.
>
> After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed
> with the redirection to the target list.
>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > > email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > > > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > > > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > > > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > > > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > > >
> > > > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > > > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > > > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > > > things to use it.
> > > >
> > > > Robbie
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > > > >
> > > > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > > period
> > > > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > > > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > > suggests
> > > > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > > > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > > > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > > > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> > > JIRA
> > > > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > > > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> > > should
> > > > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > > > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > > > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies
> > > in
> > > > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> > > the
> > > > > > same place they were going originally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robbie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining
> > > in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
> > > joining)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to
> > > a new list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate,
> > > and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
> > > all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > > on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> > > way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> > > myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> > > easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> > > way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> > > addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> > > gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> > > and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> > > most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> > > 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
> > > are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
> > > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
> > > messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
> > > cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> > > that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
> > > 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> >
> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
> > > some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
> > > to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
> > > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
> > > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
> > > is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
> > > follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
> > > list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
> > > decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
> > > clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Comments inline

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal.

Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I
only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using
commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated
timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address
this.

If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy
consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do
and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and
lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I
wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all.

As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw
that was what you had already requested without saying that
previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR
comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me.

> Those
> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out).

Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I
wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list,
I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently
alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails
moved over to issues@a.a.o).

>I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
> that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.
>

I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them
there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been
mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving.

> I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.
>

What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good
to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think.
It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask
tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have
sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually
care what its called.

The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days
to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the
way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years.

> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA.
> If not please let Me know.

I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your
decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or
suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet.

As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an
existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think
commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred
instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once
censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it.

After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed
with the redirection to the target list.

>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> > email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> > >
> > > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> > >
> > > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > > things to use it.
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > > >
> > > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> > period
> > > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> > suggests
> > > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> > JIRA
> > > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > > > list.
> > > > >
> > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> > should
> > > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies
> > in
> > > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> > the
> > > > > same place they were going originally.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robbie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining
> > in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
> > joining)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to
> > a new list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate,
> > and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
> > all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> > on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> > way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> > myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> > easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> > way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> > addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
> > obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> > gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> > and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> > most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> > 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
> > are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
> > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
> > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
> > messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
> > cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> > that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
> > 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> >
> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
> > some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
> > to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
> > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
> > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
> > is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
> > follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
> > list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
> > important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
> > decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
> > clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
> > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
This is a simple task.  I did not think it would be a big deal. Those
gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). I
don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But
that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list.

I updated the JiRA accordingly.  I think the name is sensible enough.

If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA.
If not please let Me know.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
> email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
> >
> > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
> >
> > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> > things to use it.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> > >
> > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear
> period
> > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion
> suggests
> > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > > >
> > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the
> JIRA
> > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we
> should
> > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > > >
> > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies
> in
> > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into
> the
> > > > same place they were going originally.
> > > >
> > > > Robbie
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining
> in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just
> joining)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to
> a new list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate,
> and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will
> all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
> obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
> are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
> Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
> messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
> cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
> 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> >
> > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
> some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
> to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
> follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
> list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
> important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
> decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
> clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
> --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest
specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested
email address of gitbox@activemq.a.o?

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
> fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
> by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
>
> Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
> like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.
>
> If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
> good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
> statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
> things to use it.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
> >
> > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear period
> > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion suggests
> > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> > >
> > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the JIRA
> > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > > list.
> > >
> > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we should
> > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > > hold off moving things while we do so.
> > >
> > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies in
> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into the
> > > same place they were going originally.
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > > messages to the commit message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
> > > > >
> > > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
> > > > >
> > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been
fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the
JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed
by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?

Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem
like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists.

If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be
good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus
statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update
things to use it.

Robbie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
> name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)
>
> I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear period
> > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion suggests
> > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
> >
> > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the JIRA
> > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> > list.
> >
> > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we should
> > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> > hold off moving things while we do so.
> >
> > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies in
> > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into the
> > same place they were going originally.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > > messages to the commit message.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > > >
> > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
> > > >
> > > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
> > > >
> > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > > >
> > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list
name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there)

I will change the JIRA to be on its own list.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear period
> to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
> This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
> discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
> discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion suggests
> otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
> details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
> discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
> terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
> mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.
>
> I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the JIRA
> traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
> makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
> list.
>
> If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we should
> actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
> hold off moving things while we do so.
>
> I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
> they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies in
> reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into the
> same place they were going originally.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> > messages to the commit message.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> > >
> > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
> > >
> > > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
> > >
> > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> > >
> > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear period
to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it.
This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but
discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as
discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion suggests
otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the
details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly
discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the
terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only
mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.

I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs
belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the JIRA
traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that
makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new
list.

If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we should
actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to
hold off moving things while we do so.

I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where
they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies in
reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into the
same place they were going originally.

Robbie

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
> messages to the commit message.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
> >
> > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
> >
> > What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
> >
> > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
> >
> > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox
messages to the commit message.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.
>
> I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)
>
> What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new list.
>
> I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.
>
> If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



--
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Don’t get me wrong.  I can do with filters  personally.

I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in.  Like
Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining)

What about this.  We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to  a new
list.

I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways.

If people want those they can subscribe to the new list.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:

> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid
> me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to
> one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To:
> dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages
> on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a
> way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting
> myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it
> easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either
> way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either
> addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now
> obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my
> gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label
> and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine
> most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at
> 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People
> are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri,
> Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > >
> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more>
> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github
> messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant
> cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects
> that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb
> 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> >
> > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had
> some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided
> to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >>
> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >>
> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there>
> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to
> follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate
> list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and
> important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural
> decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the
> clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > >
> --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic

-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Ryan Yeats <ry...@connexta.com>.
As someone who just subscribes to the dev list to stay in the loop on upcoming changes or bugs, I had to recently add a filter to trash all of the messages coming from GitHub because it was way too much. I would still be interested in seeing what PR's are opened but the noise from getting emailed for every comment on every PR was too much if I wanted that I would have watched the project directly in github.

Ryan

On 2/15/19, 3:48 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:

    The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing this
    based on a feedback of someone else.
    
    So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Just
    trying to make it easy for new people.
    
    On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
    christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
    
    > I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to
    > do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.
    >
    > There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it
    > manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that
    > GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a
    > different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have
    > something similar.
    >
    > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
    > >
    > wrote:
    >
    > > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.
    > >
    > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute
    > more
    > > > often: I think that it be good.
    > > >
    > > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.
    > It
    > > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions
    > > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.
    > > >
    > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
    > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
    > > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people
    > to
    > > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
    > > > >
    > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
    > > > >
    > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there
    > is
    > > > too
    > > > > much traffic.
    > > > >
    > > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub
    > comments
    > > > to a
    > > > > separate list.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.
    > > > Such
    > > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually
    > > even
    > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.
    > > > > --
    > > > > Clebert Suconic
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Kind regards
    > > >
    > > --
    > > Clebert Suconic
    > >
    >
    -- 
    Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> Date: 15/02/2019  22:39  (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> >> wrote:>> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
The thing is.  I can do fine with filtering.  So in a way I’m doing this
based on a feedback of someone else.

So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone  coming on board now. Just
trying to make it easy for new people.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to
> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.
>
> There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it
> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that
> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a
> different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have
> something similar.
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute
> more
> > > often: I think that it be good.
> > >
> > > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.
> It
> > > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions
> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people
> to
> > > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
> > > >
> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
> > > >
> > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there
> is
> > > too
> > > > much traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub
> comments
> > > to a
> > > > separate list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.
> > > Such
> > > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually
> > even
> > > > codes but without the clutter of github.
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy to
do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.

There is a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it
manageable I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that
GitHub related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a
different one which solves the issue.  I imagine most email providers have
something similar.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute more
> > often: I think that it be good.
> >
> > I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox. It
> > requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions
> > about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
> > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people to
> > > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
> > >
> > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
> > >
> > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there is
> > too
> > > much traffic.
> > >
> > > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub comments
> > to a
> > > separate list.
> > >
> > >
> > > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.
> > Such
> > > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually
> even
> > > codes but without the clutter of github.
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
People are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute more
> often: I think that it be good.
>
> I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox. It
> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions
> about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
> > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people to
> > filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
> >
> > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
> >
> > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there is
> too
> > much traffic.
> >
> > Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub comments
> to a
> > separate list.
> >
> >
> > We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.
> Such
> > as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually even
> > codes but without the clutter of github.
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind regards
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Otavio Piske <op...@redhat.com>.
Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute more
often: I think that it be good.

I think that the Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox. It
requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions
about subjects that interest me and for which I would like to help.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
> suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people to
> filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
>
> But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
>
> I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there is too
> much traffic.
>
> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub comments to a
> separate list.
>
>
> We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.  Such
> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually even
> codes but without the clutter of github.
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>


-- 
Kind regards

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com>.
Hey Justin - looks like I'm living in the past on this topic.  OK, I
figured out what's going on.

I had a filter for the gitbox messages going into a separate gmail
folder/label.  Now that I'm looking at it carefully, all of the content in
there is ancient.  SO, it appears when the gitbox notifications got moved
to another list, this just went stale and I never paid any real attention
to it.

Now I've revived it.  Apologies for the confusion, and thanks for helping
to clear it up.

I'm going to remove all filters for the DEV list and if anything odd comes
up, I'll look into it.

Art




On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:18 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:

> Art, can you clarify the "hint, hint"? Perhaps I missed some context
> somewhere. The GitBox emails stopped hitting the dev list over 4 years ago
> now. Are you saying that you haven't looked over the dev list in 4 years?
> :-)
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:01 AM Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
>
> > Just saw this from a rare look over DEV list messages (hint hint) ;-).
> >
> > So glad to see this action.  Easy-to-Use is top priority, and a dev list
> > that requires filtering to use - why?  Just why?
> >
> > Art
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to github notifications on another list.  It does indeed drown out
> the
> > > communication here and not everyone can use a filter.  I use Nabble, so
> > its
> > > not as easy.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from:
> > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Art, can you clarify the "hint, hint"? Perhaps I missed some context
somewhere. The GitBox emails stopped hitting the dev list over 4 years ago
now. Are you saying that you haven't looked over the dev list in 4 years?
:-)


Justin

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:01 AM Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:

> Just saw this from a rare look over DEV list messages (hint hint) ;-).
>
> So glad to see this action.  Easy-to-Use is top priority, and a dev list
> that requires filtering to use - why?  Just why?
>
> Art
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 to github notifications on another list.  It does indeed drown out the
> > communication here and not everyone can use a filter.  I use Nabble, so
> its
> > not as easy.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from:
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com>.
Just saw this from a rare look over DEV list messages (hint hint) ;-).

So glad to see this action.  Easy-to-Use is top priority, and a dev list
that requires filtering to use - why?  Just why?

Art


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 to github notifications on another list.  It does indeed drown out the
> communication here and not everyone can use a filter.  I use Nabble, so its
> not as easy.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1 to github notifications on another list.  It does indeed drown out the
communication here and not everyone can use a filter.  I use Nabble, so its
not as easy.  

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [Discuss] automated github messages on a separate list

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Clebert,

I agree, I think it would be more "readable" to have gitbox mail on
commit@activemq.apache.org mailing list for instance.

Regards
JB

On 15/02/2019 00:36, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> I work on this dev list on my daily basis.  We had some members here
> suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just people to
> filter out stuff with filters.   Etc.
> 
> But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source  devs.
> 
> I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there is too
> much traffic.
> 
> Github is easy enough to follow.  So I propose we move GitHub comments to a
> separate list.
> 
> 
> We could leave this list for more generic and important discussions.  Such
> as the web site. Architectural decisions.  Releases.  And eventually even
> codes but without the clutter of github.
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com