llvm dev - Jul 2016 - Suggestion to Stop Cross Posting Discussions

On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that
were organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard
such as Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think that
since the early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the ISO C++
mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this regard.
> 
> +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm subproject
is encouraged to sign up for.
Another +1 from me.  The llvm-dev and cfe-dev lists are both firehoses and a lot
of people on the periphery of the community don’t subscribe to them for this
reason (which is not a negative, it’s a sign of a healthy and active project). 
A lower-traffic list for everyone in the community would be very useful.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/d8224649/attachment-0001.bin>

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:10 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics
that were
> organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard
> such as Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think
> that since the early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
> reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the
> ISO C++ mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this
> regard.
> >
> > +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm
> subproject is encouraged to sign up for.
>
> Another +1 from me.  The llvm-dev and cfe-dev lists are both firehoses and
> a lot of people on the periphery of the community don’t subscribe to them
> for this reason (which is not a negative, it’s a sign of a healthy and
> active project).  A lower-traffic list for everyone in the community would
> be very useful.
>
> David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>


In Free Pascal Compiler mailing lists ,


http://www.freepascal.org/maillist.var


there is a mailing list for all  OFF TOPIC subjects :


http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other/


When a subscriber is sent a message to "fpc-other" , there is no fear
that
it will be considered "off topic" , because its existence is for
"off
topic" messages .


In other lists , when a thread is converted to an "off topic"
conversation
, a list administrator is kindly requesting that "please move this
discussion to fpc-other list" .


So much easy .



Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/15d030e6/attachment.html>

On 6 July 2016 at 09:10, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm
subproject is encouraged to sign up for.
>
> Another +1 from me.  The llvm-dev and cfe-dev lists are both firehoses and
a lot of people on the periphery of the community don’t subscribe to them for
this reason (which is not a negative, it’s a sign of a healthy and active
project).  A lower-traffic list for everyone in the community would be very
useful.
I'm not against the idea, never have been, but I'd like to know
what's
the expected scope and topics of such a list.

In the past, I have proposed to have a separate list to discuss
non-dev topics, pertinent to the whole community (like infrastructure,
tools, etc), and have only met discouragement. That's why I'm
surprised everyone is now in agreement... :)

If we do have such a list, would any decision/consensus taken in it
(say, move to GitHub) be taken as final?

For example, say we discuss and agree on that list that we'll move to
GitHub, we'd probably have to announce to all lists, so we're sure
everyone is aware. That announcement can spark discussions like "I
wasn't aware, how can you guys take decisions without asking first",
which will be met with responses like "it was done on this and that
list, you should be there if you care". That can be avoided if we are
clear on what kinds of topics and what kind of decision power each
list has. Cross-posting to each list to let people know *beforehand*
defies the purpose of having such a list in the first place.

Another example is the llvm-commits list. It's generally accepted that
we discuss patches, but not design decisions on it, which should be
done in llvm-dev.

I'm more than happy to see all the non-dev discussions moving
elsewhere, but it has to be *clear* to everyone that decisions as
important as which VCS they'll use next month will be decided there.

cheers,
--renato

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:52 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> 
> On 6 July 2016 at 09:10, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm
subproject is encouraged to sign up for.
>> 
>> Another +1 from me.  The llvm-dev and cfe-dev lists are both firehoses
and a lot of people on the periphery of the community don’t subscribe to them
for this reason (which is not a negative, it’s a sign of a healthy and active
project).  A lower-traffic list for everyone in the community would be very
useful.
> 
> I'm not against the idea, never have been, but I'd like to know
what's
> the expected scope and topics of such a list.
It seems that the clear scope for the list is topics that apply to all
subprojects, including developer meeting, infrastructure issues, policy
changes/issues, etc.
> If we do have such a list, would any decision/consensus taken in it
> (say, move to GitHub) be taken as final?
Yep, that affects everyone.

-Chris