| Store | Cart

Re: [CLEANUP RFC] The list of lists

From: Leon Timmermans <faw...@gmail.com>
Mon, 20 Oct 2014 03:02:40 +0200
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Sawyer X <xsaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. However, your sentence seems to me as if it's implying Perl> maintenance is one layer of centralized work where you either have all of> it or none. However, as far as I understand, it's as decentralized as any> other project, where some people know some areas more than others.>>> This means some people care about breakage in their subsystems, others in> other subsystems. Some people might have an overall view in which they want> to know of all subsystems breakage.>> This is where a split view is ideal. Unless every single person on the> list needs to know about every single subsystem that breaks, having a list> with everything is simply unnecessary.>

Problem is, everyone is interested in a different subset, and I don't
believe it can generally be split cleanly in a way that a computer can
preselect it easily.


> But does everyone need to view every single ticket discussion? This is> counter to how these systems are designed.>> A ticket system dictates that you view the conversation if:> * You opened the ticket.> * You were assigned the ticket.> * You were added as a watcher.> * You registered yourself to get updated.>> Then updates go to you personally.>> Anyone can take an update that came from an email, forward it to the list,> and discuss it there to get everyone's comment on it. Question is, does> every single ticket require the attention of everyone?>> Instead of providing an avenue for people to decidedly be part of a> discussion, everyone is automatically added to it and then have to filter> it out.>

It doesn't. This is entirely optional, it just happens to be that the
default is on, and that's a sensible default IMHO: If it was off, hardly
anyone would see them.


> This wasn't about "this specific thing is a burden" but "the overall> approach of sending *every single thing* to p5p is creating a very large> stream that makes it harder to discern emails you want to read than ones> you don't". I am doubtful that everyone on the list reads every mail.>

I'm doubtful that *anyone* on the list reads every email.

As Kent noted, it's easier to put it together than pull it apart.
>

Which is exactly why it's a single list, there is no easy way to pull it
apart in a *useful* way.


> I think it's actually easier to define it as:> * Committers get broken build emails.> * Person who wrote the patch which broke the build get the emails.> * Anyone who wants to view broken builds registers freely.>> A broken build email can be forwarded to the list to create a discussion.> Alternatively, a ticket can be opened from it which will hold its> discussion there. Anyone can join as "watchers" there to receive updates on> the entire discussion even if they are not part of it.>

I suspect we can use mail-threading more sensibly here. That could decrease
the perception of number of emails involved.


> That makes sense.>> Discussions can still happen using bugs, patches, smoke reports, or any> other email as a catalyst. They just need to be forwarded and a thread> ensues. Is every ticket or email starting its own thread? No. Only some.> Those can be done independently.>> It doesn't make sense that every single summary, bug, patch, smoke report,> and more, will be sent to the entire list because *some* might be used to> start a discussion thread. Not withstanding, the queue system has an entire> mechanism to hold the discussion there. You can independently update it via> email instead of the ticket system, if you prefer, and you can register for> the feed to it to get updates.>

And who would I be to decide to whom something would be interesting?

What I suggested (note "suggested", since it's clear it isn't desired) does
> not suppress openness and transparency. More than anything, the idea was to> make it easier for new contributors to join the list and follow it without> being overwhelmed with traffic.>> I reckon the reason this is separated in so many other mailing lists is> because it makes it *easier* to maintain. I see this isn't the case here.>

I think you're arguing for splitting on source, while trying to achieve
splitting on target audience. This will not work.

Leon

Recent Messages in this Thread
Sawyer X Oct 17, 2014 04:48 pm
Thomas Sibley Oct 17, 2014 05:52 pm
Sawyer X Oct 17, 2014 06:10 pm
Craig A. Berry Oct 17, 2014 06:27 pm
James E Keenan Oct 19, 2014 12:18 am
Sawyer X Oct 19, 2014 04:53 pm
Ricardo Signes Oct 20, 2014 12:45 am
David Golden Oct 20, 2014 10:19 pm
Aristotle Pagaltzis Oct 21, 2014 12:38 am
David Golden Oct 21, 2014 01:36 am
Abigail Oct 21, 2014 07:37 am
Sawyer X Oct 22, 2014 12:27 pm
Kent Fredric Oct 25, 2014 01:22 pm
Leon Timmermans Oct 20, 2014 01:02 am
David Golden Oct 17, 2014 06:49 pm
Sawyer X Oct 17, 2014 07:24 pm
Father Chrysostomos Oct 17, 2014 07:39 pm
Sawyer X Oct 18, 2014 06:22 pm
Kent Fredric Oct 19, 2014 01:49 am
Ricardo Signes Oct 19, 2014 02:32 am
Leon Timmermans Oct 25, 2014 01:58 pm
Messages in this thread