On 24.07.2015 04:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej 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 JIRAs...so 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 ...

And, of course, the overarching question is whether implementing my
recommendation requires hand-holding by the Incubator. I don't think it
does.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org