Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF project.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > I see Paul's argument, but I don't think it's a blocker. > > In my head, I imagined something like this: > > 1. PR is opened > 2. ASF script sends notification to ML > 3. Someone spots it on the ML, goes to Github, posts a comment > 4. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML > 5. Original PR author responds > 6. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML > 7. etc... > > Each interaction is happening on Github, and what we're seeing is a record > of activity on dev. > > Compare this to how we work with JIRA. > > Seems perfectly doable to me. > > And so what if people have to sign up for a Github account? If they are > really so against it, post something to the list, and ask someone else to > forward on your message, or what have you. I really see no basis for > objection here. > > > > > On 15 March 2013 20:43, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > NS
