On Mar 15, 2013, at 21:40 , Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never >> place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and >> vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation. >> >> This makes a lot of sense. Anyone remember Google Code? Remember how >> AWESOME Google Code was? I even had my website hosted out of it. Everyone >> was doing cool shit with Google Code. Because it was AWESOME. That wasn't >> that long ago, when you think about it. CouchDB was in a Google Code repos >> before we moved to Apache. But now who uses Google Code? I mean, seriously. >> When you see a project hosted on Google Code, doesn't your heart just sink >> a little bit? >> >> The point being, can you imagine if the ASF had decided to move all of >> their hosting to Google Code? Can you imagine how embarrassing that would >> be now? Where would we be today in that world? Would we migrate again? >> >> Github is awesome. And I enjoy using it. And there are many very successful >> projects who have formed a community around the workflows that it offers. >> (Hello Node.js people!) And that's awesome. Genuinely. But we are not >> hosted on Github, and our community is not a Github shape. BUT we should do >> everything we can to welcome contributions through that channel. Just like >> we should work to welcome communications through any channel. Git is meant >> to be decentralised, after all. ;) >> >> Paul, to your points, Jan is chatting to infra about modifying our existing >> setup so that comments are sent through to the list as well. I am crossing >> my fingers that this is possible, and that it is reliable enough for us to >> use. I am not sure how we're gonna get replies to be posted back, but if >> there's an API, then I don't see why it can't be done. >> > > Just to be clear, I think it'd be awesome if someone managed to get > this working. I'm just saying that I'm a bit pessimistic here. I think > we're agreeing here that getting email notices from GitHub PRs to the > dev@ list would be a good step but that getting mailing list updates > posted back to the PR is where the rubber meets the road. Without the > latter to close the loop there I don't see this as being anything more > than annoying to people attempting to contribute via PR as they won't > see updates from the list. GitHub already allows emailing to Issues and PRs one is participating in. I’mma find out how we can make use of that. > And I'd also point out that trying to have some sort of policy where > we tell people to sign up for a GitHub account to be able to > contribute to those discussions doesn't seem like a valid proposition > to me. Excellent point. I was gonna suggest that we can live with a one-way sync for a transitional time, but this argument makes me reconsider. Cheers Jan -- > >> If anyone wants to pitch in with this, please speak up. This would be a >> great way to contribute to the Foundation. This script would likely be used >> by all of the Apache TLPs over time. Decent way to maybe earn some browny >> points too... ;) >> >> >> On 15 March 2013 19:39, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson >>> <m...@sorensonbros.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey folks, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to bring two things to your attention: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43 >>>> >>>> >>>> ^ I opened that one (obviously(?)) >>>> >>> >>> I suppose if I take the time to click through to your user account and >>> compare your name to the one used to send this email. Though not all >>> GitHub accounts have a real name anyway so its not always apparent >>> who's contributing something even if I do go out of my way to figure >>> out who is who. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18 >>>>> >>>>> These just happen to be two pull requests I looked at today, there are >>>>> more. >>>>> >>>>> On the one hand, this is great. Obviously. Any sort of constructive >>>>> activity happening around CouchDB is great. >>>>> >>>> >>>> thank you! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But on the other hand, this discussion is core development discussion, >>> and >>>>> should be happening on the dev list where everybody can see it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure where you get that PR#43 is core dev at all, plz clarify? >>>> >>> >>> Its a change to the source code repository. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (This is foundational stuff for an Apache project. Community building >>>>> should be focused around the mailing lists. >>>> >>>> >>>> (I've already made it known that I don't agree with this at all) >>>> >>>> >>>>> I get that Github is useful for >>>>> people, but we're not a Github project, so our activity should not be >>>>> happening there.) >>>>> >>>>> I don't know what to suggest. Obviously, I think pull requests are >>> great. >>>>> And I think the forking model of Github is great, because it allows >>> people >>>>> to contribute more easily, and in a manner that suits them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> PR#43, for anyone that may have skipped the description and comments >>>> thread there (or who may have commented and then deleted the comment >>>> in a rush of "OMG-i-made-a-PR-comment-instead-of-sending-to-the-ML" >>>> ASF policy loyalty silliness) is precisely about surfacing the Apache >>>> CouchDB >>>> contribution policy in a "github-official" manner that will make it far >>>> more >>>> obvious ***to githubbers*** in just the way githubbers have (or will) >>> come >>>> to expect! >>>> >>>> IOW, it aims to greatly aid the very challenge that this email rant is >>>> about. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But on the other hand, we shouldn't be having important development >>>>> discussions in pull requests. >>>> >>>> >>>> disagree, again. >>>> >>> >>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't mean the ASF is going >>> to change one of their fundamental policies or that we as a project >>> can start ignoring that policy. >>> >>>> >>>>> The PR isn't even against the Apache CouchDB >>>>> mirror. It's against a Cloudant fork! (So even less likely that folks >>> are >>>>> going to see it.) >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps one of the policies we could document is that discussion of pull >>>>> requests must be brought to the list. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again, could be accomplished in the manner PR#43 describes(!) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is, if a PR comes in to the Apache Github mirror, then we make a >>>>> polite comment on the PR that points them to the mailing list thread and >>>>> asks them to participate in that forum, so the maximum amount of devs >>> can >>>>> see and contribute. >>>>> >>>>> We could also say that if you have a fork of CouchDB, and you're >>> planning >>>>> to contribute the work back to Apache CouchDB (as is the case with the >>>>> Cloudant fork) that you do the same with any PRs that are made to your >>>>> repos. >>>>> >>>>> A sample template comment could be as follows: >>>>> >>>>> == >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the pull request! >>>>> >>>>> This is a mirror of the Apache CouchDB project, so many of the >>> committers >>>>> do not monitor it for comments. Instead of discussing this pull request >>>>> here, I have started a thread on the [developer mailing list] and I >>> invite >>>>> you to participate! >>>>> >>>>> [LINK TO MAILING LIST THREAD] >>>>> >>>>> == >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, the mailing list thread, or the first reply to it, should >>> CC >>>>> the original author. >>>>> >>>>> One alternative to this (which is a bit of a mess, I know) is to write >>>>> an integration that copies Github comments to the mailing list thread, >>> and >>>>> mailing list posts to the PR. Not sure that would work with forks of the >>>>> main mirror, however. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? Flames? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm speaking personally, and I know there are strong and varying >>>> opinions on the subject among participants here. >>>> >>>> I also know the CouchDB PMC leads have a strong desire to spur >>>> involvement in the project, and nothing dooms my personal desire >>>> to work towards contributing than some ill-explained ass-backwards >>>> 90's era bureaucratic mandate that EVERYTHING be facilitated over >>>> the ML. >>>> >>> >>> While various ASF policies can be dense and difficult to understand at >>> times, the mailing list policies are pretty straight forward. >>> Regardless of your personal feelings on email and mailing lists in >>> general, the fact is they are the single most widely deployed and >>> widely compatible interfaces to push notifications in existence. >>> >>> To be a bit more specific on Noah's link: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management >>> >>> The fact is that Apache uses mailing lists for development. Any >>> development discussion that is not on this mailing list did not happen >>> as far as the project is concerned. >>> >>>> In fact it is due to that policy and general ASF-iness that keeps me >>>> closer to the sidelines. This is a hobby, at best, for me at this time, >>>> and I already have no chance of keeping up with the ML activity. >>>> >>> >>> Its important to point out that having a mailing list centric >>> communication channel does not require contributors to read all emails >>> on the list. Its quite acceptable to subscribe and ignore every thread >>> that you don't care about. Even developers will skim threads or even >>> skip uninteresting ones all together. >>> >>>> I'd rather see the asf git become the archive mirror, quite frankly. >>>> How many resources could the ASF preserve (or apply more >>>> productively - development, conferences, promotion) by adopting >>>> github infra formally (for starters). >>>> >>> >>> There are a lot of people that think this way and its been an opinion >>> voiced on lots of mailing lists. Mostly by people that use GitHub. >>> Suffice to say the ASF has roundly rejected this due to a long laundry >>> list of reasons. >>> >>>> And i'm not some 19-yro kid who grew up always thinking of email >>>> as irrelevant legacy tech, I've been doing this awhile myself. >>>> >>>> There's a lot to it. And, unsurprisingly, I don't care for essays in >>> emails. >>>> It's about the bazaar model. It's about signal-to-noise (for each >>>> individual!). >>>> It's about being able to subscribe to the topics you care about and not >>> have >>>> to wade through the noise of the topics you don't care about, just to >>> find >>>> those topics you do care about (because at some point, the value prop >>>> just isn't worth it anymore). It's about *thinking like the web* and >>>> **observable work**[1]. >>>> >>>> (is the ML observable? sure, in a sense, but barely) >>>> >>>> It's about all of that and a whole lot more. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> NS >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> feedback always welcome of course, and thx for listening >>>> -- >>>> matt >>>> >>>> [1] http://emjayess.net/think-like-jon-udell >>> >>> I appreciate the desire to leverage the activity at GitHub and I think >>> that's a goal that we should keep as a project but the thing we need >>> to remember is that as awesome as GitHub is, there's definitely >>> downsides to it as well. >>> >>> There are plenty of projects not on GitHub and as much I as love >>> GitHub I understand its not right for every project. And for people >>> that really insist that GitHub is a panacea, I'll refer you to >>> Torvald's rather colorful refutation of that position. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> NS
