On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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...
Perhaps just ceph@xxxxxxx? Make it clear in the description that
it is a development list and direct users to ceph-users@xxxxxxx.
>
> 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?
I think the old list has to stay intact (i.e. continue as ceph-devel)
for archive's sake. vger doesn't provide a unified archive service so
it's hard as it is...
Thanks,
Ilya
