[Engine-devel] Getting rid of arch@ovirt.org?
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? Regards, Ayal.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 04:53:04AM -0400, 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).
+1 to ditching arch. I would still prefer that cross-component features cross-post to vdsm-devel and engine-devel. My current focus is on vdsm and the traffic level on that list is currently far more manageable than that of engine-devel. -- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
----- Original Message -----
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 04:53:04AM -0400, 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).
+1 to ditching arch. I would still prefer that cross-component features cross-post to vdsm-devel and engine-devel. My current focus is on vdsm and the traffic level on that list is currently far more manageable than that of engine-devel.
That's my sentiment as well (plus I have a rule to drop duplicates so I don't care much about it ;)
-- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
-----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'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= =iBdY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 07/15/2012 12:37 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
-----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've been understanding @arch as sort of a catch all list for many project types that aren't -devel or -user -- infra and marketing issues, for instance, but maybe this misses the initial intention of @arch. I don't know if more cross-posting is the answer -- I'm subbed to all the ovirt lists and I'm seeing a ton of duplication, which I'm finding annoying. Just this morning, in fact, I was looking into deduping addons for thunderbird.
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'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on.
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= =iBdY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
-- Jason Brooks Media & Communications Open Source and Standards @ Red Hat identi.ca/jasonbrooks twitter.com/jasonbrooks
----- 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.
I'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on.
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= =iBdY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
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? Thanks Robert >> I'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general >> interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a >> technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of >> thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep >> developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on. >> >> - - Karsten >> - -- >> Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth >> http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com >> @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >> iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN >> AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= >> =iBdY >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> vdsm-devel mailing list >> vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org >> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
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. 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.
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? > 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
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 > >
On 16/07/12 10:01, Itamar Heim wrote:
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:
-----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
----- Original Message ----- 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
ok so if reply to such mail de-facto I'll send a mail to the arch list - shouldn't I be register to the arch list (or I need someone to approve the mail)?
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
On 07/16/2012 10:55 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 16/07/12 10:01, Itamar Heim wrote:
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
ok so if reply to such mail de-facto I'll send a mail to the arch list - shouldn't I be register to the arch list (or I need someone to approve the mail)?
you would be moderated the first time you reply to it, yes. same as for all other mailing lists - not an issue usually.
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
Hi, On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
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?
It's a tricky problem, as Karsten said. In fact, one of the questions I had when joining the list is, where do all the developers hang out? And outside of arch@ there wasn't a good answer. I'm not on vdsm-devel, neither vdsm-devel or engine-devel are mentioned at all on http://www.ovirt.org/project/community/ and like Karsten I think there is a role for a list which allows everyone to talk about topics unrelated to a specific component, but also not related to "users" who are not contributing to the project. I agree, though, that the cross-posting is an issue. It seems like I need to cross-post every message to at least 2 or 3 lists to get everyone I'm interested in reaching - this suggests to me that we have too many communication channels, and need to consolidate a little. That, or we need to help people understand which forums they should be in for which types of communications, so that we don't constantly have the problem of cross-posting to be on the safe side. That's the solution I prefer. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards Team, Red Hat Phone: +33 9 50 71 55 62
participants (8)
-
Adam Litke -
Ayal Baron -
Dave Neary -
Itamar Heim -
Jason Brooks -
Karsten 'quaid' Wade -
Livnat Peer -
Robert Middleswarth