You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@hadoop.apache.org by Owen O'Malley <oo...@yahoo-inc.com> on 2009/06/30 19:53:29 UTC
jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
All,
As we voted on core-dev, I just changed the jira notifications to:
create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
all jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
-- Owen
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <s2...@yahoo.com>.
+1 on Doug's suggestion.
I am getting > 100 emails everyday. I map the emails to different accounts. It is good to reduce it. Otherwise, I probably need to put them on hdfs. :)
Nicholas Sze
----- Original Message ----
> From: Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>
> To: general@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 11:54:59 AM
> Subject: Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
>
> Owen O'Malley wrote:
> > create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
> > all jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
>
> I'd like to remove create/resolved/reopen from the -issues lists, so that folks
> who subscribe to both lists do not see such events twice. This would change the
> policy to:
>
> - create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
> - all *other* jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
>
> Objections?
>
> Doug
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Doug Cutting wrote:
> Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> -1 from me.
>
> You subscribe to both lists and really prefer receiving create/resolve
> messages twice?
Arun? I'm trying to decide whether I must add a filter to automatically
delete the second copy of these messages, or whether we can eliminate
the second copy. Do you really subscribe to both lists and prefer
receiving both copies?
Doug
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Doug,
Message-ID is unique. However, what I can see in my mail is that all subsequent
emails (after JIRA created message) have its Message-ID in their In-Reply-To field.
Say,
Subject: [jira] Created: (HADOOP-6110) test-patch takes 45min!
Thread-Topic: [jira] Created: (HADOOP-6110) test-patch takes 45min!
Thread-Index: Acn2Jd4/MZg/3jVETQKT5ZEGzVtNCA==
Message-ID: <18...@brutus>
List-Help: <ma...@hadoop.apache.org>
and
Subject: [jira] Updated: (HADOOP-6110) test-patch takes 45min!
Thread-Topic: [jira] Updated: (HADOOP-6110) test-patch takes 45min!
Thread-Index: Acn4rGYcaU6FaceJSyGggrQ+1INmpg==
Message-ID: <11...@brutus>
List-Help: <ma...@hadoop.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <ma...@hadoop.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <18...@brutus>
I don't see In-Reply-To field in the example you've sent to me. Is it because
some tags are being stripped out by mail archiving software?
Cos
On 7/1/09 1:29 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> Actually, Thunderbird and Mutt are at least two which does thread JIRA's
>> threads properly.
>>
>> The way they do so is exactly by using Message-ID and In-Reply-To fields
>> of a RFC-822 header.
>
> The Message-ID is different for each message, and is thus alone not
> useful for threading. I don't see an In-Reply-To header in Jira-sent
> messages, nor a References header. These are the preferred means for
> threading according to RFC2822, although some readers thread by subject
> too. Thus all comments relative to an issue may be threaded, but not
> together with other updates, like assignment, attachment, etc., since
> these use different subjects.
>
> For example, do you see these headers in http://tinyurl.com/lw3cse?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Actually, Thunderbird and Mutt are at least two which does thread JIRA's
> threads properly.
>
> The way they do so is exactly by using Message-ID and In-Reply-To fields
> of a RFC-822 header.
The Message-ID is different for each message, and is thus alone not
useful for threading. I don't see an In-Reply-To header in Jira-sent
messages, nor a References header. These are the preferred means for
threading according to RFC2822, although some readers thread by subject
too. Thus all comments relative to an issue may be threaded, but not
together with other updates, like assignment, attachment, etc., since
these use different subjects.
For example, do you see these headers in http://tinyurl.com/lw3cse?
Doug
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@yahoo-inc.com>.
On 7/1/09 12:22 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> -1 from me.
>> The create/resolve/reopen traffic is very minor compared to the
>> comments. I'd prefer to have the whole thread in one place (*-issues)
>> rather than fiddle with multiple mailboxes. *smile*
>
> I assume you mean "thread" loosely, since all messages related to an
> issue are not threaded together by any mail reader that I know of, since
> Jira changes the subject and does not set a "References" or
> "In-Reply-To" header.
Actually, Thunderbird and Mutt are at least two which does thread JIRA's threads
properly.
The way they do so is exactly by using Message-ID and In-Reply-To fields of a
RFC-822 header.
Cos
> You subscribe to both lists and really prefer receiving create/resolve
> messages twice?
>
> I subscribe to both, and have a filter that marks-as-read messages sent
> to -issues, so I have the full set of messages available to searches,
> but only am notified about new and watched issues.
>
> Doug
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Arun C Murthy wrote:
> -1 from me.
> The create/resolve/reopen traffic is very minor compared to the
> comments. I'd prefer to have the whole thread in one place (*-issues)
> rather than fiddle with multiple mailboxes. *smile*
I assume you mean "thread" loosely, since all messages related to an
issue are not threaded together by any mail reader that I know of, since
Jira changes the subject and does not set a "References" or
"In-Reply-To" header.
You subscribe to both lists and really prefer receiving create/resolve
messages twice?
I subscribe to both, and have a filter that marks-as-read messages sent
to -issues, so I have the full set of messages available to searches,
but only am notified about new and watched issues.
Doug
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Arun C Murthy <ac...@yahoo-inc.com>.
On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
>> all jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
>
> I'd like to remove create/resolved/reopen from the -issues lists, so
> that folks who subscribe to both lists do not see such events twice.
> This would change the policy to:
>
> - create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-
> dev
> - all *other* jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
>
> Objections?
>
-1 from me.
The create/resolve/reopen traffic is very minor compared to the
comments. I'd prefer to have the whole thread in one place (*-issues)
rather than fiddle with multiple mailboxes. *smile*
Arun
Re: jira notifications on common, hdfs, and mapreduce
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Owen O'Malley wrote:
> create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
> all jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
I'd like to remove create/resolved/reopen from the -issues lists, so
that folks who subscribe to both lists do not see such events twice.
This would change the policy to:
- create/resolved/reopen events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-dev
- all *other* jira events are sent to {common,mapreduce,hdfs}-issues
Objections?
Doug