On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Sigh... we didn't discuss another name, and the confusion with searching archives in particular didn't occur to me. :( If we're going to use a different name, now is the time to pick one. I'm not sure what is better than ceph-devel, though... Maybe making a new ceph-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and aliasing the old ceph-devel to either ceph-kernel or the (new) ceph-devel would be the least confusing end state? sage
