On 6/3/19 12:07 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
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.
Not perfect, but how about ceph-devel2?
Mark
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
