On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:45 PM Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ceph-dev@xxxxxxx > ceph-develop@xxxxxxx > dev@xxxxxxx (doesn't confuse autocomplete) +1 to dev@xxxxxxx or devel@xxxxxxx since the ceph.io DNS name provides the context that it's for Ceph-related matters. > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Mark Nelson <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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 -- Jason
