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
