Good Morning Kyo, I am sorry for your frustration in this matter, and I appreciate you sticking it out with us. I'll let the git professionals answer the code related stuff and I'll handle the acronyms.
CTR - Commit then review ( doing code review after it has been committed) RTC - Review then Commit ( waiting for a review of the code, then committing it to the repo) PMC - Project Management Committee (http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html) I admit it took me about 2 or 3 emails before CTR and RTC became clear to me. Best Regards, Cam On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Lee, Kyo (329C-Caltech) < huikyo....@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> > >
