16 Jul
2012
16 Jul
'12
9:01 a.m.
On 07/16/2012 09:56 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: > On 16/07/12 09:41, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote: >>> On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new >>>>>> cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it >>>>>> would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are >>>>>> being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 >>>>>> subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this >>>>>> perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch >>>>>> arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new >>>>>> cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel >>>>>> or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about >>>>>> engine side but would still like to know about such changes). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> - -1 >>>>> >>>>> I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't >>>>> noticed >>>>> that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening >>>>> here. >>>>> I'm probably not the only person in that situation. >>>>> >>>>> If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could >>>>> understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new >>>>> incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation >>>>> and >>>>> infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we >>>>> can >>>>> reach *all* contributors to this project. >>>>> >>>>> If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not >>>>> everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is >>>>> not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so >>>>> I filter it) or people would drop it all together. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* >>>>> general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to >>>>> arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project >>>>> have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the >>>>> discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on >>>>> arch@ and announce@ as a minimum? >>>> I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on >>>> the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I >>>> believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and >>>> vdsm-devel. >>>> However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of >>>> subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch >>>> is on engine). >>>> So imo something needs to be done. >>>> I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to >>>> enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not >>>> exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. >>> Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? >>> >>> Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for >>> generally ovirt development? >> >> we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending >> to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists. > > What would happen if someone reply on the engine-list to a mail > originally sent to arch? > > wouldn't we end-up starting a thread on arch and then loosing it to one > of the other lists? reply-to is not set to reply-to-list, rather to original sender/cc list, so shouldn't be an issue > > >> wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to >> subscribe to it as well. >> (for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from >> engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc. >> _______________________________________________ >> Arch mailing list >> Arch@ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > >