On 15.03.2013, at 22:23, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Even with the caveat that we can post it there for them worst case like we already did with JIRA issues at times? Jan -- > > 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
