Dear all, Finally I read all of this thread. Now I am writing to express my sincere apologies for my words and failure to control my anger. I realized that some of my behavior inappropriate and disrespectful. I hope that you will allow me the opportunity to express my apology again in person this Thursday.
I will appreciate if someone can answer the following two questions. - How can I commit to the Git repo at the ASF directly? Is this what I should do? What makes this push different from Github pull request? $ cd climate $ git remote add apache https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/climate.git $ git push apache $branch - What is canonical source code? There are also some silly questions. What do RTC, CTR and PMC stand for? Without these abbreviations, it would be much easier to understand some of email. Your sincerely, Kyo On 5/12/15, 10:36 PM, "Cameron Goodale" <good...@apache.org> wrote: >Wow! There sure is a lot of passion and fire in this thread, so let me >put >on my asbestos small clothes and wade into the pool. > >Dear Kyo, > >When you say that this discussion is a waste of your time it makes me sad. >Sure sitting here the last 20 minutes reading this thread could be seen as >a waste of my time too, but I did it and I am writing this because I care >about my friends on this project, including you. > >I really hope you were writing out of frustration earlier, and see that >this isn't a waste of your time. > > > >To everyone else that reads this, > >My sincere hope is that everyone on this project wants what is best for >the >project, best community, best climate tools, best code, best version >control, etc... so when tempers flare and people are using ALL CAPS, >please >try to slow it down a notch and try to see it from the other person's >perspective. > > >Thanks for reading, > > > >Cameron > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for the great responses Lewis. You put into words what I >>haven't >> seemed to be able to type out today. Few comments below (it's really >>mostly >> just me typing +1000000 to be honest though) >> >> >> -- Jimmy >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < >> lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi Chris, >> > Please see replies inline >> > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:10 PM, <dev-digest-h...@climate.apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > I¹m honestly not sure what you are talking about, >> > >> > >> > Not even one wee bit ;) maybe some of my replies will bridge the gap >> > between you not being sure about what I am talking about Vs >>disagreeing >> > with what I am trying to say. >> > >> > >> > > and to be honest, >> > > waiting 72 hours before committing everything is not a project I¹d >> > > ever want to be on. >> > >> > >> > Well lets for a minute consider the flip side (or another possible >>side) >> of >> > this coin. I would never want to be on a project where patches are >>merged >> > which clearly break > 50% of the tests in the entire codebase. It >>seems >> to >> > me, rather detrimental to the project codebase as well as other >>community >> > members who have confidence in a codebase for patches to be committed >>and >> > merged whcih essentially break everything! Additionally, this goes >> against >> > all of the good practice I've ever learned since stumbling across >>TheASF >> > some 6 years ago! I can't word this opinion any other way. >> > >> >> I'll add a +1 to not being interested on working on a project where the >> build is broken all the time because people can't be bothered to run the >> test suite. It wastes a huge amount of limited developer resource >>tracking >> down bugs for people. If you don't know how to run the tests, just ask. >> It's literally 1 command to run the entire test suite for the OCW >>package. >> If you're not sure just ask and people will help you out!! I don't know >>a >> single person here who wouldn't be willing to offer guidance and I know >>I >> have personally offered up my time to help out more times than I can >>count. >> >> >> > >> > >> > > Like I said - if I care about a review, or >> > > want something to be seen by someone, fine, I can choose to ask for >> > > it. >> > >> > >> > Absolutely correct. I agree. >> > >> > >> > > It shouldn¹t be *imposed on me*. >> > >> > >> > It seems like imposed is a strong word given the sentiment of the >>thread >> > and the openness of Mike to open it up initially to how people want >>to do >> > things. I think what we are trying to determine here is whether people >> feel >> > like things are being imposed upon them. If that ends up being one of >>the >> > outcomes of this thread then we need to accept, address, change, >> implement >> > and move on. >> > I consider a grace period as a politeness as well as a duration which >> > people can gauge the contribution(s) and comment accordingly. That is >> all. >> > It is not so people can shoot it down. That would be detrimental >>indeed. >> >> >> Imposed is way too strong of a word in my opinion. This is the workflow >>the >> project has laid out and used for the last year. I will agree we need >> better documentation on it (like this is the only thing). The intention >>of >> this thread is to make sure it's working appropriately for the project. >>If >> people don't like the workflow, let's talk about it. We're not forced >>to do >> something. It's our project. If we don't like it we can change it =D >> >> >> > >> > >> > > BTW Apache projects and their >> > > conversation need to happen at the ASF and I¹m seriously concerned >> > > that¹s not happening here. There is too much reliance on Github >> > > for this project. >> > > >> > >> > I understand what you are saying here Chris. There is a lot of >> development >> > chat going on at Github. This is on an issue-by-issue bases AFAIK >> however, >> > therefore I am of the opinion that essentially this is no different >>from >> > the same conversation happening over on Jira and the same messages >>being >> > shadowed over onto dev@. The reason I say that is that (with my >> > experiences >> > of mentoring Apache Usergrid) communities should not be *forced* to >>use >> > Jira over Github. The same messges are shadowed to Jira and to the >> Mailing >> > Lists. This is a nuance of the communication workflow. If this is a >>major >> > issue (we've been here before haven't we ;)) then it needs to be dealt >> > with. This argument has a lot of precedence at the foundation and we >>can >> > dig it up if need be. >> > What is your suggestion then Chris? That all correspondence is moved >>to >> > Jira? That it happens on the ML? That we find a balance between the >> three? >> > >> > >> +1. Personally, I don't see how talking on github for code reviews is >> different than talking about a patch on JIRA. >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > Yes. Flat out. We don¹t VOTE 72 hours on every line of code, or >>every >> > > patch, >> > > or waiting for a grace period to commit things. >> > >> > >> > There was no mention of VOTE'ing at all AFAIK. All commentary thus far >> has >> > referred to a 72 window for community commentary that was all. After >>this >> > 72 hours (not months) it is absolutely cool to commit away. BTW, it is >> also >> > cool to commit away before those 72 hours. There is no Bylaws >>established >> > by OCW to state anything any different. This combined with the >>pre-commit >> > build for the project has kept builds stable on OCW for as long as I >>can >> > remember. It seems to be doing a reasonable job at keeping the test >>suite >> > stable and passing successfully. I would have thought that this >>practice >> > would have been fine given the fact that comments typically come in >> before >> > 72 hours and I've seen a bunch of patches committed before 72 hours as >> > well. >> >> >> Yep +10000 to all of this. Also that 72 window was never anything beyond >> the guideline that I personally tried to stick with when merging >>commits. >> Not sure how that has turned into some sort of edict from the heavens >>in 5 >> emails but it certainly seems to have. >> >> >> > >> > >> > > Things that are big >> > > changes, >> > > controversial, sure, get feedback from others. >> > >> > >> > Yes. I agree. >> > >> > >> > > If I want to add a test. >> > > Update >> > > something that isn¹t being used in the code base, or that doesn¹t >>even >> > have >> > > tests to show how it works one way or another? Someone should be >>able >> to >> > > press >> > > forward on that. Releases? 72 hours. New PMC/committers? 72 hours. A >> new >> > > JIRA ticket, >> > > etc.? Not sure we need that. >> > > >> > >> > I think there is an issue here though. It's not this type of thing >>that >> 72 >> > hours is in place for. It's proposed patches which break the build and >> test >> > suite and mean that others working off of master cannot keep up to >>date >> > with master. That is what the workflow guards against. Someone please >> > correct me if I am wrong. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > No it has to do with two people on this project (Joyce, Whitehall) >> > > seemingly >> > > to me suggesting things that Kyo continue to keep doing to his >>ticket >> > > before it should be committed - and vice versa - him in turn doing >>the >> > > same thing to their tickets and so forth. >> > >> > >> > No comment. >> > >> >> There seems to be some feeling that this is malicious or something I >> gather? >> >> >> > >> > > And Kyo not even knowing that >> > > he has direct commit access to the Git repo at the ASF >> > >> > >> > That's a clear failure of the PMC and Kyo's introduction to the PMC in >> > communicating to Kyo that he has commit rights to the canonical source >> code >> > and that he can essentially commit whenever and whatever he likes. >>That >> > seriously needs to be addressed. >> > >> > >> > > , and honestly a >> > > guide >> > > that I was pointed to that says the primary source code base for the >> > > project >> > > is at Github (newsflash: it¹s not - that¹s where our *mirror* is). >> > > >> > >> > I've never seen it so no comment. I am aware that canonical source is >>at >> > Apache. >> > >> >> +1. Never seen it. If there's something confusing in the wiki docs then >> please update it Chris. I didn't see anything in the dev guide that >> indicated this. >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > How many other people are getting batch emails? >> > >> > >> > Here or at Apache? I honestly do not have the answer to either Chris. >> > >> > >> > > Also, batch emails are good >> > > for catching up later, but I see most of the activity on this >>project >> > being >> > > automated emails from JIRA and Github. >> > >> > >> > Are these automated emails not happening as a result of development >> issues >> > being discussed on either Jira or Github? My thoughts are yes. >> > >> > >> > > Lewis as a member of the foundation >> > > I¹m sure you¹re privy to the recent strife and discussion related to >> this >> > > over >> > > the years >> > >> > >> > Absolutely I am. I've also however seen extremely successful >> > Apache-compliant Github workflows dramatically increasing development >>and >> > interest in codebases. Usergrid is an excellent example of that. We >> really >> > struggled over there for a number of months with an entire PPMC nearly >> > opting to leave the Incubator due to what they saw as ridiculous >> > constraints upon what Infra wanted them to do. My justification for >> getting >> > involved in this thread is because I felt I learned a lot from that >> > experience and I hope I can help out here! >> > >> > >> > > - a project¹s sole source of activity and conversation related to >> > > development cannot be automated emails from bots. We should >>probably be >> > > discussing dev related stuff in emails. That¹s still the lowest >>common >> > > denominator. >> > > >> > >> > I checked out the mailing list archives and almost every message is >> > generated automatically. So your point is utterly valid. I would ask >>if >> you >> > if you think disassociating all contextual development communication >>from >> > Jira or any other issue tracker is a wise thing to do? >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > What are community suggestions? >> > >> > >> > I'm looking forward to hearing them. >> > >> > >> > > I see PRs from Kyo getting many suggested >> > > revisions from Whitehall and Joyce - and then I see similarly some >> issues >> > > when they try and push code. I see Mike being the guy to integrate >>and >> > push >> > > PRs after review (his own and other people¹s). That¹s scarily like a >> > BDFL. >> > > >> > >> > I don't see it this way. I would be pretty convinced that Mike can >>speak >> up >> > here and state that he would wish others to commit their own patches. >> > >> >> I know for a fact that I have said this many many times to many many >>people >> on this mailing list (and specifically this thread). I'm not really sure >> how doing something that no one else will step up and do == BFDL. It's >> certainly not a responsibility that I want (being the BFDL or the person >> that merges everyones stuff for them fyi). >> >> >> > >> > > Yes I said it. Is Mike the merge master? >> > >> > >> > Not at all. If you check out my other thread I sent in reply to Kyo, >> there >> > are 29 Committers with write access to the codebase and 42 >>subscribers to >> > this list in all. That is a hellish impressive number of people to >>have >> on >> > the PMC. The truth though Chris is that is it were not for Mike then I >> > would have had nothing committed to the codebase! That is the reality >>of >> > the situation with most of the patches which have come to OCW. I >> > acknowledge and highly suggest (and expect) that this behavior will >> > certainly change after this thread. >> > >> >> +1 Let me say this loud and clear since there seems to be some >>confusion. >> >> Please step up and merge stuff people. I am not, and do not, want to be >>the >> only person doing it. Nor have I have ever and I've made this abundantly >> clear to many people on this thread. >> >> >> > >> > >> > > Has he thrown up a VETO on Kyo¹s >> > > code? >> > >> > >> > I don't think so no. >> >> >> > >> > > What about Whitehall? >> > >> > >> > I don't think so no. >> > >> > >> > > What about you? >> > >> > >> > No. >> > >> > >> > > That¹s about the only thing >> > > that can stop him from committing to the code base directly. >> > >> > >> > Exactly. >> > >> > >> > > He is a PMC >> > > member and I¹m sorry and not going to dance around the issue >>anymore - >> > he¹s >> > > not being treated like a PMC member. And I¹m bringing it up and not >> > > sweeping >> > > it under the carpet. >> > > >> > >> > This is a foreign concept to me and I was not aware that Kyo was not >> being >> > treated as a PMC member. Unless I have missed this corresponence >> happening >> > on list then I was not aware of it. The list (as you've mentioned) is >>the >> > canonical location for project communication. I've seen nothing to >> suggest >> > that Kyo is not being treated as a PMC member. I hope my enthusiasm in >> > trying to reply to some of his concerns today emphasize that. I just >>hope >> > it is not too little too late. >> > >> >> +1000000 >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > > I don¹t think it¹s working well. In fact, I know it isn't. See >> referenced >> > > email from Kyo. >> > >> > >> > I replied. >> > >> > >> > > He¹s finding it difficult to contribute. >> > >> > >> > Well we need to help with that. That is the only way forward. The >>mailing >> > list is open for this kind of communication. Frustrations are all too >> often >> > voiced here which is probably too late. I would like to call out Kyo >> > personally and state that if you read this, and you are having an >>issue >> > contributing to the OCW codebase over and above community comments >>then >> > please let us know. We can either sit down one-to-one, in company or >>else >> > the PMC can maybe even do a casual hangout and we can resole the >> committer >> > issues. >> > I would like to also point you to the following resources Kyo >> > http://apache.org/dev/contributors.html#providingfeedback >> > In particular it details how to submit patches and provides guidance >>for >> > what those patches should minimally do. I quote >> > " >> > >> > change the sourcefiles to incorporate your change or addition. Make >>sure >> > you also provide appropriate source code documentation (like javadoc >>for >> > java sources), and follow a project's coding conventions. >> > >> > check the software still compiles and runs correctly >> > >> > run any unit or regression tests the software may have >> > " >> > If there is any part of this or anything else which we can aid with >>then >> > please let us know on the list. >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > I¹ll help spell >> > > that out for you here in plain English. *He is a PMC member on this >> > project >> > > and finding it hard to contribute*. Can I make it more clear? >> > > >> > >> > I see stating the problem as a given. Resolving it is another kettle >>of >> > fish. We will get there though Chris :) >> > >> > >> > > >> > > I do. It¹s too long. >> > >> > >> > Too long for what? Is development on OCW time sensitive? >> > >> > >> > > Please let me know the sacred vow that breaking >> > > a test on OCW causes. >> > >> > >> > Non at all. It is development code afterall and hey that is what >>source >> > code management systems are for right? Sh*t I am all for breaking >>project >> > builds I done it many times before or many projects. I am however also >> for >> > taking on board a Jenkins message which tells me I've broken a number >>of >> > tests. >> > >> > >> > > We have 0 users of the project. We are our own >> > > users. >> > >> > >> > This is not true Chris I am sorry. I was only talking to someone today >> who >> > mentioned a recently committed module is being used by foreign >> researchers. >> > A number of us have made efforts to grow the Climate user base and I >> think >> > we need to be very sure that no-one is using the codebase before >>stating >> > explicitly that no-one does. >> > >> > >> > > I¹m going to make a scary suggestion. Push all the code! >> > >> > >> > Really ;) >> > >> > >> > > Do >> > > things! Talk on the dev list. Figure out how not to piss >> > > people like Kyo off and gain their contributions even if it means >> > > breaking some tests, compromising (Kyo too), but people on all >>sides. >> > > >> > >> > Chris I think we are all for doing things. I hope we are getting to a >> stage >> > now where we will unearth what it is that is pissing Kyo off. We all >>have >> > an obligation as part of the PMC to support his with any committer and >> > developer resources he requires. This includes potentially guiding him >> > towards development neutral lists such as community@/community-dev@, >> etc. >> > I >> > can't provide help to someone if I don't understand where the >> > pain/frustration stems from. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Sorry but PMC lead is no more special than any PMC member. >> > >> > >> > No-one said he was AFAIK. My point was that Mike was engaged in a >>primary >> > development role of OCW. Whereas others were/are not. >> > >> >> Again. I would like to point out. I have NEVER wanted to indicate >> otherwise. Nor would I. If people are confused what being the PMC chair >> means I suggest they read the ASF docs on it. >> >> >> > >> > >> > > The person >> > > has an added responsibility of filing a board report and being the >> > > eyes and the ears of the board. I haven¹t seen it come across that >> there >> > > is a concern that he¹s merging everything. I have a concern. I¹m >> bringing >> > > it up. >> > > >> > >> > As you are entirely entitled to do. We are by no means at crisis point >> > here. There are issues which need addressing with regards to this >>topic. >> > I've TBH never seen a PMC with 29 members and only 1 person merging >>code. >> > >> > >> > > This PMC will have succeeded when Kyo Lee has merged and committed >>his >> > own >> > > code to the repo. It will succeed when Mike¹s not committing >>everyone¹s >> > > PRs. >> > > >> > >> > Sounds like a sure aim to me. It is not difficult. All Kyo needs to >>do is >> > as follows >> > >> > $ cd climate >> > $ git remote add apache >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/climate.git >> > $ git push apache $branch >> > >> > >> > It would be real nice if you could try out a test commit Kyp to see if >> you >> > are able to do so. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >I would suggest that we augment the workflow to accomodate a thirst >> step >> > > > >> > > >3) Please make best efforts to at least consider other community >> > comments >> > > >before merging. This way we can work collaboratively to all have a >> > better >> > > >understanding of the codebase. >> > > > >> > >> > >> > Do you Chris or does anyone else have an opinion or suggestion for >> > augmenting the workflow or abolishing it altogether as the above >>thread >> > would suggest? >> > >> >> I would like to hear from more people who have been doing dev work with >> this workflow. Hopefully some more people will chime in with their >> thoughts, at least before we make some changes. >> >> >> > I think regardsless of what we end up deciding upon, we need to have >>it >> in >> > black and white on the wiki. >> >> >> +10000 >> >> >> >> > I >> >> t seems like this has become a major pain >> > point for Kyo less a major concern for Chris as a champion of the >>project >> > and ongoing mentor. >> > I would like to work together to establish a resolution. Kyo, it would >> mean >> > A LOT if you were part of this. This also goes for the other ~25 PMC >> > members. OCW is a significant imbalance in the community with regards >>to >> > development Vs ML correspondence and physical ML presence. An >>observation >> > and inference on my part is that this is the result of many people >> > basically not having the time and or cycles to actively discuss or >> develop >> > OCW in line with their day-to-day operations. This is not due to an >> overly >> > convoluted commit process. The fact that Kyo is struggling is our >>primary >> > cause for concern as loosing a valuable community member is literally >>a >> > disaster no matter what the community is and how many individuals are >> > associated with the community. >> > >> > Any comments folks? >> > Thanks Chris for your comments. >> > Lewis >> > >>
