incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Contents of Podling Status Tracking
Date Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:11:37 GMT
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:40 AM sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 June 2017 at 04:22, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
> > As a follow up to my prior question, (
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/31119aafbc4260720d222666f3efd01f2fe2975e424039ea539c9cb6@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > ).
> > Looking at our current tracking file for podlings, I wonder how much of
> the
> > information is useful.  Let's use Traffic Control as a for instance here:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/trafficcontrol.html (its nothing
> > they're doing bad, I just happened to grab them)
>
> However their status file does not contain the full range of data that
> is normally present.
> e.g. no website link, no repo link, no champion/mentors
>


Good points.  I think we definitely want to have areas for source repos,
the website (override-able?), confluence keys, etc.

As mentioned, I'm less concerned about roster information at this point on
the status page because of Whimsy.


> > - The committer list is fully replaced by the Whimsy Roster Tool
> > - Do we care about News? Shouldn't this be captured in the quarterly
> > reports?
>
> It's easier for outsiders to read here.
> It perhaps encourages the podling to think about progress.
>
>
So maybe a free form area for news items?


> > - I see a lot of usefulness in tracking the Podling Name Search request
> > - The first few questions have to do with the actual vote.  I think these
> > can best be captured by two fields - "Sponsor" and "Date Accepted into
> > Incubator"
> > - Infra section - I think all of these are important, we may want to
> expand
> > some of the options to include gitbox and other tools that are managed
> > outside our hosted infrastructure.
> > - Mentor section - I'm not sure how useful this is, but I want to get
> > others opinions.  Mentors being on the IPMC is a pre-req for votes, so
> this
> > is hopefully less of an issue.
> > - Copyright - I believe this can be replaced by a single field "Date SGA
> > Received".  Copyright headers are subjective.
> > - Add a new field "Date of IP Clearance" for projects using IP Clearance
> > instead of SGA (e.g. already Apache v2)
> > - Verify Distribution Rights - I think this can be rewritten to instead
> say
> > "Date of Release with no Source Licensing Issues" (listing out the bullet
> > points mentioned here) and a new field "Date of Release with no Binary
> > Licensing Issues" (indicating some of the Cat-B/Optional Cat-X stuff)
> > - I don't think we need the committers section at the bottom, since the
> > roster would be controlled from Whimsy itself.
> >
> > Is there more information that we could leverage to make this easier to
> > watch?  I figure that once a podling has filled out all of these (except
> > for one of SGA/IP Clearance) we can tell them they're close to
> graduation.
>
> I find the status files useful for quickly finding information about a
> project that would otherwise require a trawl of lots of pages of the
> website.
> It also allows the PPMC to record info about the project (e.g. git
> repo, JIRA etc) before the website has been set up.
>


I've been going back and forth on this.  I think you're thinking along my
lines - should the status file be public or private.  I think we need a
public read only version of the status, in addition to the writeable
version.


>
> It is useful beyond just tracking progress to graduation/retirement.
>
> Having a single page to show summary info and track the status is
> something I think we should keep.
> But I agree it needs to be easier to maintain and it should be obvious
> when bits of information are missing.
>
>
Huge +1.  My biggest issue is that it's arbitrary HTML.  Any podling can
add stuff as they see fit, or remove sections, and it's not obvious.


> This would be easier to do if the page were generated from properly
> structured data files.
>
> Could the data all be handled in podlings.xml?
> Or should podlings.xml be split into individual files?
>

I feel like splitting is more desirable.  From what I'm seeing, it's adding
20 new data elements.  Merging podlings.xml + the status file into a new
file makes a bit more sense.  JSON is easier to parse, but leaves more to
be desired from someone manually tweaking the file.


>
> > John
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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