On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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 > -- >
I dunno. I was just pointing out that I wasn't optimistic that it would be an acceptable mode of communication. > >> >> 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
