On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 08:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 10:03 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Should we request a separate mailing list? I don't expect it to be high volume obviously but it could make communication easier since people live across multiple time zones. Also, it would make
subjects
easier since right now on the devel list we have to make it pretty obvious to catch the right peoples attention.
Personally it would be very difficult to make IRC meetings with
work
and home obligations but I think the mailing lit would mitigate
that
somewhat.
It is easy to get one, are there more people interested by having a dedicated mailing-list ? Knowing that:
- on #fedora-review for the moment there are three person (including
me)
- there is already the packaging mailing-list for packaging
questions
Good thinking! I didn't even think of checking for an existing mailing list for some reason.
Are the current owners of the packaging mailing list amenable to us using the it for the Packaging SIG?
Would you be ?
Thanks, Pierre
On 10/12/2011 09:44 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 08:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Are the current owners of the packaging mailing list amenable to us using the it for the Packaging SIG?
Would you be ?
If the traffic added would be low, perhaps. I would not want to see copies of every new Review Request showing up on this list.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/12/2011 09:44 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 08:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Are the current owners of the packaging mailing list amenable to us using the it for the Packaging SIG?
Would you be ?
If the traffic added would be low, perhaps. I would not want to see copies of every new Review Request showing up on this list.
I don't think there's any need to send email for every review; I wouldn't want that on any list. It's easy enough for people who want to help to save a bugzilla search for new reviews and/or stalled reviews.
--Andy
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 10:56 -0400, Andy Grimm wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/12/2011 09:44 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 08:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Are the current owners of the packaging mailing list amenable to us using the it for the Packaging SIG?
Would you be ?
If the traffic added would be low, perhaps. I would not want to see copies of every new Review Request showing up on this list.
I don't think there's any need to send email for every review; I wouldn't want that on any list. It's easy enough for people who want to help to save a bugzilla search for new reviews and/or stalled reviews.
I believe there is a mis-understanding or mis-communication from me there :)
The idea of the list is to coordinate work on reviews. So coordinate work in process and debate around tools available for it.
I do not want to see all review in my mailbox, I already receive too many mails which I do not read. IMO, this wouldn't be a high-volume subject (just see how many people are interested/have replied to the thread on devel@lists).
Pierre
Excerpts from Pierre-Yves Chibon's message of Wed Oct 12 17:34:25 +0200 2011:
I do not want to see all review in my mailbox, I already receive too many mails which I do not read.
Yup, we already have package-review@ for that I believe.
-- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotnicky@redhat.com Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
"AG" == Andy Grimm agrimm@gmail.com writes:
AG> I don't think there's any need to send email for every review; I AG> wouldn't want that on any list.
Well, actually, all of that traffic is already on a list (the package-review list). I subscribe and there were times when I actually read all of the traffic there.
Anyway, I've gone back and forth about using this list or -devel. I'd hate to have "yet another list (TM)" but I'd hate to annoy anyone (and trying to do things in -devel is mostly pointless).
So maybe start here and move to a separate list of the volume becomes too high?
- J<
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:35:28PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"AG" == Andy Grimm agrimm@gmail.com writes:
AG> I don't think there's any need to send email for every review; I AG> wouldn't want that on any list.
Well, actually, all of that traffic is already on a list (the package-review list). I subscribe and there were times when I actually read all of the traffic there.
Anyway, I've gone back and forth about using this list or -devel. I'd hate to have "yet another list (TM)" but I'd hate to annoy anyone (and trying to do things in -devel is mostly pointless).
So maybe start here and move to a separate list of the volume becomes too high?
+1. I've not yet summoned the time to participate in the Package Review SIG and I don't see a problem with sharing this list for now. Likely, the questions that arise around package review would end up on this list anyhow.
-Toshio
On 10/13/2011 06:41 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:35:28PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "AG" == Andy Grimmagrimm@gmail.com writes:
AG> I don't think there's any need to send email for every review; I AG> wouldn't want that on any list.
Well, actually, all of that traffic is already on a list (the package-review list). I subscribe and there were times when I actually read all of the traffic there.
Anyway, I've gone back and forth about using this list or -devel. I'd hate to have "yet another list (TM)" but I'd hate to annoy anyone (and trying to do things in -devel is mostly pointless).
So maybe start here and move to a separate list of the volume becomes too high?
+1. I've not yet summoned the time to participate in the Package Review SIG and I don't see a problem with sharing this list for now. Likely, the questions that arise around package review would end up on this list anyhow.
IMO, this list should remain restricted to resolving packaging principles and to resolving corner-cases/precedences (An "expert list")
At least I do not want to this list to become a newbie forum nor "yet another source" of review spam. You might not want to hear this, but to me personally, the chatter and the bureaucrazy's (typo intended) noise on package-review@ already is beyond "being bearable".
Ralf
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
At least I do not want to this list to become a newbie forum nor "yet another source" of review spam.
Well, if you consider tibbs, rex, sochotnicky or toshio (people who have mentionned to be interested in the SIG) to be newbie then I guess we are not welcome. If you do not consider them to be newbie then I would invite you to read again what's the idea behind this SIG.
You might not want to hear this, but to me personally, the chatter and the bureaucrazy's (typo intended) noise on package-review@ already is beyond "being bearable".
Again, we do not want to duplicate/replicate/have anything in common with package-review@.
Or you have to tell me how I can try to be more clear.
Pierre
On 10/13/2011 09:38 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
At least I do not want to this list to become a newbie forum nor "yet another source" of review spam.
Well, if you consider tibbs, rex, sochotnicky or toshio (people who have mentionned to be interested in the SIG) to be newbie then I guess we are not welcome.
Except of you and sochotnicky, I know all of them.
If you do not consider them to be newbie then I would invite you to read again what's the idea behind this SIG.
Yes, may-be I should read it for the n-th time. Openly said, I don't see much sense in such a SIG, but I didn't want to take away your favorite toy.
You might not want to hear this, but to me personally, the chatter and the bureaucrazy's (typo intended) noise on package-review@ already is beyond "being bearable".
Again, we do not want to duplicate/replicate/have anything in common with package-review@.
Or you have to tell me how I can try to be more clear.
So ... what do you want to do?
Problems within a review belong into the review, general/fundamental problems belong on this list rsp. in front of the FPC, ... I don't understand hat are you aiming at, except that you are intending to implement the (n+1)th body in fedora.
Ralf
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Andy Grimm -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Ralf Corsepius -
Stanislav Ochotnicky -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi