On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ] > I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that > separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be > discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved to > Jira for implementation and review. > > I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea proves > to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much > discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion was, as > review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that discussion on the > list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this. TL;DR +1 I think there are actually a couple of related, but disjoint issues here. IMO, a JIRA should be the source of truth for an issue, a way to track any on-going efforts, and a historical account after-the-fact. Regardless of where you think discussions should take place, I would argue there is room for improvement here; Many of our JIRAs (I would argue the most interesting ones!), are very difficult to make use of for either of these cases (current status, or after-the-fact). Some curation (as someone else pointed out in this thread), could go a long way. Retitling and/or revising the description as the scope of a ticket evolves, or posting a summary or current status in the description body would be ways for people who are up to speed on an issue, to spend a few minutes making it valuable to others. So would summarizing discussions that take place elsewhere. The other issue is discoverability and/or inclusivity. If the only way to keep abreast of what is happening is to follow the fire-hose of all JIRA updates, then contribution is going to be limited to those with the bandwidth. If you work on Cassandra full-time, this probably doesn't seem like a big deal, but if your time is limited, then it can create quite a barrier (and I've been on both sides of this with Cassandra). So moving serious discussions to the mailing list is also a sort of curation, since it creates a venue free of all the minutiae/noise. My personal opinion is also that it's far easier to manage a given volume with email, and that the discussions are easier to follow (the interface is better at representing the ontology, for example), but from what I can gather, not everyone agrees so YMMV. Cheers, -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com
