incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:48 GMT
In that respect it is just like a hackathon.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
> benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.
>
> It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
> the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
> that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
> online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
> other aspects of the project.
>
> I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
> done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
> >
> > -- For sure.
> >
> > "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> > must review all commits first.""
> >
> > -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> > trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> > will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> > everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> > all.  It is about community.
> >
> > Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> > to go without a counter.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <
> stevel@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Steve,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> > stevel@hortonworks.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a
> community?...
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> > >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> > >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should
> be
> > > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC
> (via
> > > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > > commits first."
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> > >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> > it,
> > >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> > >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are
> things
> > to
> > >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> > subtle
> > >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> > later
> > >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> > work
> > >> out what happened and why.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> > have
> > > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > > typical problem with development.
> > >
> > > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing
> and
> > CI)
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> > can
> > >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> > >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> > still
> > >> more inclusive of
> > >>
> > >
> > > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out"
> of
> > > the first review, not ALL review.
> > >
> > > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> > >
> > > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> > and
> > > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus.
> We
> > > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> > up
> > > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10
> people
> > > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -g
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message