Hi,
Looking at:
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Dev-f1639786.html
depending on time of day you find 50-90% patch mails on there. As the writer of
mail forward I have been repeatedly asked if we can kill this spam.
I fully agree with this sentiment -- the dev-list should be taylored to be
inviting to a wide audience of volunteer contributors and not only to those
hardcore contributors who are full-time sponsored developers. I dont think the
ESC is the right place to decide this as it is overwhelmingly filled with the
second.
So, is there anyone who is _not_ a sponsored developer opposing to kill the mail
spammage? If so:
- could this be mitigated by a separate gerrit-patches mailing list?
- could this be mitigated by a daily digest of "gerrit news"?
- could this be mitigated by other means?
I think the drowning of the list with automated patch mail is really hurting us (as
did the patch mails before). Note that this does:
- not mean we should weaken the requirements for the list to be clearly about
  development and related to code only
- not mean that it is evil to send a patch to the list (although its a bit
  misguided given how gerrit simplifies and enables things ;) )
I was forced to do the mail forward thingie to accomodate migration of
antiquiated workflows -- I was never very happy with it and really embarrased
to defend it when I would have never done it like that myself.
Opinions?
Best,
Bjoern
Context
   
 
  Privacy Policy |
  
Impressum (Legal Info) |
  
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
  on this website are licensed under the
  
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
  This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
  licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
  "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
  registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
  in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
  logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
  thereof is explained in our 
trademark policy.