incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:11:06 GMT
On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko ─îibej wrote:
>> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>>> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
>>> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
>>> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
>>> happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
>>> about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
>>> dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
>>> we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
>>> encourage everyone to do so going forward.
>> As a small reminder, evidently to IPMC members as well as podling
>> committers: Jira is not the official archive of "what happened" on the
>> project. Only the dev@ list is. There is no requirement for any project
>> to use the ASF Jira instance; there's not even a requirement to use an
>> issue tracker. Suddenly making the contents of tickets in Jira an issue
>> for graduation is just a bit out of order IMNSHO.
>> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
>> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.
> But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
> see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
> to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
> not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
> commits IDs nor the how exactly are we to interpret what's
> going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?
> Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
> also about making the development and decision process open and
> transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
> not appear to be that way yet.
> I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
> one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
> stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
> satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
> of) the board.

There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
is not relevant history. Discussions do happen on the dev@ list, so the
problem must be in the commit messages. I've pointed out that these
leave much to be desired. My diagnosis here is overuse of Jira; what we
see here is a typical many-places problem: Discussions happen on the
dev@ list but a Jira issue is raised for each every change, ever so
minor; the notification about the issue creation goes to the dev@ list,
the change is made, nobody objects and that's it. Hence, there doesn't
seem to be much correlation with all the JIra spam and dev@ discussions.

First of all, it's not reasonable to expect a dev@ discussion for every
one-liner change; CTR rules. Next, it's not reasonable to open a Jira
issue for every one-liner change; that's simply a waste of time (and
leads to the kind of misunderstandings that we have on this thread).

I do insist that discussion of important issues and features does happen
on the dev@ list. The Jira tickets that are created as a result of those
discussions can easily be cross-referenced by a simple search in the
dev@ archives.

My only recommendation here would be to use Jira only to track important
issues and to always write proper commit logs. The latter is an art that
takes years to learn ...

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message