From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC39211B739D for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CB6A3697F; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-239.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.239]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6E0104C53B; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:28:10 +0000 (UTC) To: Rebecca Cran , stephano Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org, "Kinney, Michael D" References: <39677800.F463k0L8Pm@photon.int.bluestop.org> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <3e2336bd-6143-eaa3-f6b7-85bf145d4fae@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:28:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <39677800.F463k0L8Pm@photon.int.bluestop.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-announce] Community Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:28:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/13/19 04:59, Rebecca Cran wrote: > On Friday, 11 January 2019 12:26:30 MST stephano wrote: > >> Patch Review System Evaluation >> ------------------------------ >> After evaluating Github, Gitlab, and Phabricator, we will be remaining >> with the mailing list for now. Github did prove a possible "2nd runner >> up" (albeit distant). Also, Stephano / Nate from Intel will be reviewing >> Gerrit use with a report being sent back to the community sometime next >> week. > > I wonder if we might want to have a separate mailing list for reviews? > > I find it a bit overwhelming having both patches and more general discussions > on the same list, since I only check it every few days. > I vaguely recall that this topic (separate mailing lists) has come up before. I don't remember what the consensus was back then (or if there was a consensus to begin with). Personally, while I slightly prefer the single mailing list for now, I'd certainly not oppose multiple mailing lists either. I could still filter both "design" and "patch" lists into the same local folder. Some pitfalls to consider: - In some (infrequent) cases, a patch thread could be cross-posted to the design list as well -- in such cases, it might be more difficult to establish context for those people that are only subscribed to one of the lists, or filter them to separate folders. - If we have multiple lists, then we'll have to subscribe the agents of external archivers to them separately (such as mail-archive.com). - If we have multiple lists, and cannot lift the "subscribe to post" requirement, then the initial inconvenience for participants could increase. But, again, I totally understand Rebecca's perspective, and many open source projects use different lists for different themes / emphases. Thanks, Laszlo