Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in pushing
this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move the
gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe to and
follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of every
patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where to
move it *to*.

There were two options:

1) use the existing issues@ list
2) use a new reviews@ list

My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when someone is
fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily create a
new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to just JIRA
but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an easy
filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can always
separate them back out.

Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent', though
I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.

I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be great
to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
upcoming podling report.

-Todd

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

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

-Todd

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

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



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

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

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

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


-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

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

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

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

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

I'm +0 with the split.

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

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

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

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

-Todd

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

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



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org>]

My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the other
way then no big deal.

Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to JIRA
how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review traffic
(separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way (however,
it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to).

I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search index
for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it, since
I already get that through GMail as a subscriber.

Mike

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need when I
> search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports are
> usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation details
> (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.
>
> As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives anyway,
> because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to the
> source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code reviews). But I
> imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: bug
> reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
> > > reviews. My arguments are:
> > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to
> > > reviews@,
> > > etc.).
> > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools
> > often
> > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies
> > 'manual'
> > > searching.
> > >
> > >
> > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both code
> > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in commit
> > messages and code review conversation?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> > jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks
> > > > complain it's still not good enough.
> > > >
> > > > J-D
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in
> > > pushing
> > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move
> > the
> > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe
> > to
> > > > and
> > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision
> of
> > > > every
> > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle
> where
> > > to
> > > > > move it *to*.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were two options:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> > > > >
> > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when
> > someone
> > > > is
> > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily
> > > > create a
> > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to
> > just
> > > > JIRA
> > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides
> an
> > > > easy
> > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can
> > > always
> > > > > separate them back out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent',
> > > though
> > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would
> be
> > > > great
> > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
> > > > > upcoming podling report.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Todd
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>]

I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need when I
search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports are
usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation details
(i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them.

As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives anyway,
because I understand the details and also know how to go straight to the
source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code reviews). But I
imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: bug
reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed.





On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
> > reviews. My arguments are:
> > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to
> > reviews@,
> > etc.).
> > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools
> often
> > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies
> 'manual'
> > searching.
> >
> >
> But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both code
> reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in commit
> messages and code review conversation?
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> jdcryans@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks
> > > complain it's still not good enough.
> > >
> > > J-D
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in
> > pushing
> > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move
> the
> > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe
> to
> > > and
> > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of
> > > every
> > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where
> > to
> > > > move it *to*.
> > > >
> > > > There were two options:
> > > >
> > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> > > >
> > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when
> someone
> > > is
> > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily
> > > create a
> > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to
> just
> > > JIRA
> > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an
> > > easy
> > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can
> > always
> > > > separate them back out.
> > > >
> > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent',
> > though
> > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be
> > > great
> > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
> > > > upcoming podling report.
> > > >
> > > > -Todd
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
> reviews. My arguments are:
> 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to
> reviews@,
> etc.).
> 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools often
> aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies 'manual'
> searching.
>
>
But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from both code
reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in commit
messages and code review conversation?


>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks
> > complain it's still not good enough.
> >
> > J-D
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in
> pushing
> > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move the
> > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe to
> > and
> > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of
> > every
> > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where
> to
> > > move it *to*.
> > >
> > > There were two options:
> > >
> > > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> > >
> > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when someone
> > is
> > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily
> > create a
> > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to just
> > JIRA
> > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an
> > easy
> > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can
> always
> > > separate them back out.
> > >
> > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent',
> though
> > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> > >
> > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be
> > great
> > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
> > > upcoming podling report.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

[Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com>]

As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture code
reviews. My arguments are:
1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, gerrit to reviews@,
etc.).
2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search tools often
aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews simplifies 'manual'
searching.


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks
> complain it's still not good enough.
>
> J-D
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in pushing
> > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move the
> > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe to
> and
> > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of
> every
> > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where to
> > move it *to*.
> >
> > There were two options:
> >
> > 1) use the existing issues@ list
> > 2) use a new reviews@ list
> >
> > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when someone
> is
> > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily
> create a
> > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to just
> JIRA
> > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an
> easy
> > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can always
> > separate them back out.
> >
> > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent', though
> > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
> >
> > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be
> great
> > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
> > upcoming podling report.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
>

Re: Moving gerrit traffic to a new list

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

I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ if folks
complain it's still not good enough.

J-D

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been delinquent in pushing
> this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good to move the
> gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to subscribe to and
> follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every revision of every
> patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite settle where to
> move it *to*.
>
> There were two options:
>
> 1) use the existing issues@ list
> 2) use a new reviews@ list
>
> My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes when someone is
> fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't necessarily create a
> new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to just JIRA
> but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already provides an easy
> filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) people can always
> separate them back out.
>
> Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more 'consistent', though
> I'll let him pipe up with his rationale.
>
> I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions solicited! Would be great
> to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress back on our
> upcoming podling report.
>
> -Todd
>