On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 02:46:43PM -0400, Jason Dillaman wrote:
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.
+1 one of the two.
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
--
Jan Fajerski
Engineer Enterprise Storage
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
