Indeed that contribution policy should be clearer and not be on a page titled code style, thanks for briging that up.
If we consider all those things APIs, and additions are also considered changes that require a DISCUSS thread, it turns out that almost any not-bugfix ticket would require a mail list thread. In fact, if one goes through CHANGES.txt it's easy to see that most entries would have required a DISCUSS thread. I think that such a strict policy would only make us lose agility and increase the burden of almost any contribution. After all, it's not that changes without a DISCUSS thread happen in secret. Changes are publicly visible on their tickets, those tickets are notified on Slack so anyone can jump into the ticket discussions and set themselves as reviewers, and reviewers can ask for DISCUSS threads whenever they think more opinions or broader consensus are needed. Also, a previous DISCUSS thread is not going to impede that any changes are going to be questioned later. We have seen changes that are proposed, discussed and approved as CEPs, reviewed for weeks or months, and finally committed, and still they are questioned shortly after that cycle, and asked to be changed or discussed again. I don't think that an avalanche of DISCUSS threads is going to improve that, since usually the problem is that people don't have the time for deeply looking into the changes when they are happening. I doubt that more notification channels are going to improve that. Of course I'm not saying that there should never DISCUSS threads before starting a change. Probably we can all agree that major changes and things that break compatibility would need previous discussion. On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 10:16, Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for opening this thread Josh, > > It seems perfectly normal to me that for important changes or questions we > raise some discussion to the mailing list. > > My understanding of the current proposal implies that for the 4.1 release > we should have had to raise over 70 discussion threads. > We have a minimum of 2 commiters required for every patch. Should we not > trust them to update nodetool, the virtual tables or other things on their > own? > > There is already multiple existing ways to track changes in specific code > areas. I am personaly tracking the areas in which I am the most involved > this way and I know that a lot of people do the same. > > To be transparent, It is not clear to me what the underlying issue is? Do > we have some specific cases that illustrate the underlying problem? Thrift > and JMX are from a different time in my opinion. > > Le lun. 5 déc. 2022 à 08:09, Berenguer Blasi <berenguerbl...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> +1 to moving that into it's own section outside the coding style page. >> >> Dinesh I also thought in terms of backward compatibility here. But notice >> the discussion is about _any change_ to the API such as adding new CQL >> functions. Would adding or changing an exception type or a user warning >> qualify for a DISCUSS thread also? I wonder if we're talking ourselves into >> opening a DISCUSS for almost every ticket and sthg easy to miss. >> >> I wonder, you guys know the code better, if 'public APIs' could be >> matched to a reasonable set of files (cql parsing, yaml, etc) and have >> jenkins send an email when changes are detected on them. Overkill? bad >> idea? :thinking:... >> On 4/12/22 1:14, Dinesh Joshi wrote: >> >> We should also very clearly list out what is considered a public API. The >> current statement that we have is insufficient: >> >> public APIs, including CQL, virtual tables, JMX, yaml, system >> properties, etc. >> >> >> The guidance on treatment of public APIs should also move out of "Code >> Style" page as it isn't strictly related to code style. Backward >> compatibility of public APIs is a best practice & project policy. >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I think some of that text also got garbled by mixing up how you approach >> internal APIs and external APIs. We should probably clarify that there are >> different burdens for each. Which is all my fault as the formulator. I >> remember it being much clearer in my head. >> >> My view is the same as yours Josh. Evolving the database’s public APIs is >> something that needs community consensus. The more visibility these >> decisions get, the better the final outcome (usually). Even small API >> changes need to be carefully considered to ensure the API evolves >> coherently, and this is particularly true for something as complex and >> central as CQL. >> >> A DISCUSS thread is a good forcing function to think about what you’re >> trying to achieve and why, and to provide others a chance to spot potential >> flaws, alternatives and interactions with work you may not be aware of. >> >> It would be nice if there were an easy rubric for whether something needs >> feedback, but I don’t think there is. One person’s obvious change may be >> another’s obvious problem. So I think any decision that binds the project >> going forwards should have a lazy consensus DISCUSS thread at least. >> >> I don’t think it needs to be burdensome though - trivial API changes >> could begin while the DISCUSS thread is underway, expecting they usually >> won’t raise a murmur. >> >> On 2 Dec 2022, at 19:25, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> Came up this morning / afternoon in dev slack: >> https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CK23JSY2K/p1669981168190189 >> >> The gist of it: we're lacking clarity on whether the expectation on the >> project is to hit the dev ML w/a [DISCUSS] thread on _any_ API modification >> or only on modifications where the author feels they are adjusting a >> paradigm / strategy for an API. >> >> The code style section on Public APIs is actually a little unclear: >> https://cassandra.apache.org/_/development/code_style.html >> >> Public APIs >> >> These considerations are especially important for public APIs, including >> CQL, virtual tables, JMX, yaml, system properties, etc. Any planned >> additions must be carefully considered in the context of any existing APIs. >> Where possible the approach of any existing API should be followed. Where >> the existing API is poorly suited, a strategy should be developed to modify >> or replace the existing API with one that is more coherent in light of the >> changes - which should also carefully consider any planned or expected >> future changes to minimise churn. Any strategy for modifying APIs should be >> brought to dev@cassandra.apache.org for discussion. >> >> >> My .02: >> 1. We should rename that page to a "code contribution guide" as discussed >> on the slack thread >> 2. *All* publicly facing API changes (tool output, CQL semantics, JMX, >> vtables, .java interfaces targeting user extension, etc) should hit the dev >> ML w/a [DISCUSS] thread. >> >> This takes the burden of trying to determine if a change is consistent >> w/existing strategy or not etc. off the author in isolation and allows devs >> to work concurrently on API changes w/out risk of someone else working on >> something that may inform their work or vice versa. >> >> We've learned that API's are *really really hard* to deprecate, >> disruptive to our users when we change or remove them, and can cause >> serious pain and ecosystem fragmentation when changed. See: Thrift, current >> discussions about JMX, etc. They're the definition of a "one-way-door" >> decision and represent a long-term maintenance burden commitment from the >> project. >> >> Lastly, I'd expect the vast majority of these discuss threads to be quick >> consensus checks resolved via lazy consensus or after some slight >> discussion; ideally this wouldn't represent a huge burden of coordination >> on folks working on changes. >> >> So that's 1 opinion. What other opinions are out there? >> >> ~Josh >> >> >>
