On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We are splitting the ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list into two: > > - ceph-devel@xxxxxxx > > This will be the new general purpose Ceph development discussion list. > We encourage all subscribers to the current ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to > subscribe to this new list. > > Subscribe to the new ceph-devel list now at: > > https://lists.ceph.io/postorius/lists/ceph-devel.ceph.io/ > > - ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > The current list will continue to exist, but its role will shift to Linux > kernel-related traffic, including kernel patches and discussion of > implementation details for the kernel client code. > > At some point in the future, when all non-kernel discussion has shifted > to the new list, you might want to unsubscribe from the old list. > > For the next week or two, please direct discussion at both lists. Once a > bit of time has passed and most active developers have subscribed to the > new list, we will focus discussion on the new list only. > > We will send several more emails to the old list to remind people to > subscribe to the new list. > > Why are we doing this? > > 1 The new list is mailman and managed by the Ceph community, which means > that when people have problems with subscribe, mails being lost, or any > other list-related problems, we can actually do something about it. > Currently we have no real ability to perform any management-related tasks > on the vger list. > > 2 The vger majordomo software also has some frustrating > features/limitations, the most notable being that it only accepts > plaintext email; anything with MIME or HTML formatting is rejected. This > confuses many users. > > 3 The kernel development and general Ceph development have slightly > different modes of collaboration. Kernel code review is based on email > patches to the list and reviewing via email, which can be noisy and > verbose for those not involved in kernel development. The Ceph userspace > code is handled via github pull requests, which capture both proposed > changes and code review. I agree on all three points, although at least my recollection is that we have had a lot of bouncing issues with ceph-users and no issues with ceph-devel besides the plain text-only policy which some might argue is actually a good thing ;) However it seems that two mailing lists with identical names might bring new confusion, particularly when searching through past threads. Was a different name considered for the new list? Thanks, Ilya
