Heya Adam, The ends justify the means, really?
There is no disagreement about having binary dev builds are a benefit, if handled correctly. What is disappointing here is that Joan has mentioned this specific rule, in just about every other email concerning the automation of building binaries and you still went ahead and ignored it. Heck, just calling it couch-next and not putting it on a very official looking IBM account would already have helped. This way, we had folks coming into the (very unofficial, yet popular CouchDB Slack) asking questions about CouchDB 3, resulting in extra support work there explaining that there was no such thing. Had this been discussed here first, we could have addressed this, we could have gone with Joan’s password protected option, and any other concerns we might have had. Would that have delayed things: sure, but we would have made them more sustainable here. We could also have tried and figured out a way for IBM folks to be more present on these mailing lists despite the the dual institutional blockers of the ASF not allowing HTML emails on their mailing lists and IBM mail server not allowing to send anything but HTML email, making IBM employee participation here extremely cumbersome, to the point where most of the IBM involvement I’m seeing is on Slack and GitHub. > Given that the publication of this image had such a positive effect on the > quality of the software that we *are* releasing, I’d like to see if we can > find a way to publish nightly Docker images in a more suitable location post > 3.0. Thanks, Rewritten as “I anticipate that the publication…” this would have made a great email last summer to kick this topic off. I get that this all is frustrating, but it’s the rules we all actively chose to abide by, including the paths of changing those rules, and sniping at each other isn’t one of them. Joan has done a herculean task of getting the 3.0 build pipeline into a position that we’ve dreaming about for years, and while there is absolutely no reason for getting angry at her for any reason, piling this on now, *just* before the catharsis of getting 3.0 out that we all very badly need, is poor form. Best Jan — > On 4. Feb 2020, at 00:19, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: > > I pushed for a `couchdb3` preview image — heck, I built the first one myself > 6 months ago (!) and hosted it in my own Docker Hub account. The upcoming > CouchDB 3.0 release is better off for all the little bugs we found and fixed > as a result of those pulls. Appropriately documented, it’s just an > alternative version of https://repo-nightly.couchdb.org > <https://repo-nightly.couchdb.org/> > > If you want to take an IBMer to task for violation of subsection II, part D > of some ASF by-laws, pick me. Will has done a phenomenal job chasing down all > our internal teams and encouraging them to work with us directly and avoid > forking codebases or switching databases to meet their individual roadmaps, > and this image was a big assist in that regard. > > Given that the publication of this image had such a positive effect on the > quality of the software that we *are* releasing, I’d like to see if we can > find a way to publish nightly Docker images in a more suitable location post > 3.0. Thanks, > > Adam > >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Will Holley <willhol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Joan for highlighting the problem; the image has been removed from >> DockerHub. >> >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 17:46, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2020-02-03 12:34, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>> Thanks Joan for raising this, >>>> >>>> I’m throwing in an extra “this is bad” because of the version number. >>> 3.0 is not a thing yet and we have brought that up with several IBMers that >>> calling anything intermediate “CouchDB3” (this is isn’t the first time) is >>> problematic in the CouchDB Slack. >>>> >>>> Y’all need to do better. Is suggest the removal of this image blocks the >>> 3.0.0 release, to make sure nobody gets the wrong bits. >>> >>> >>> I agree - I was going to fork 3.x and 3.0.x today but I'll hold off >>> until this gets resolved. We still have 2 documentation issues that need >>> to be resolved, and verification of the Windows build, before we can >>> release anyway. >>> >>> -Joan >>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Jan >>>> — >>>> >>>>> On 3. Feb 2020, at 18:08, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi IBM people, >>>>> >>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/ibmcom/couchdb3 >>>>> >>>>> This is a problem, especially because i'm seeing 50K+ pulls on this >>> image already. >>>>> >>>>> We've not yet released CouchDB 3.0. Any use of this image outside of >>> our immediate developer community is a direct violation of Apache release >>> protocols, and could result in serious problems down the road. >>>>> >>>>> If you need a dev image for CouchDB to build Fauxton, that's one thing >>> - but that image needs to be built each time, or hosted on a *private* >>> repository with credentials. >>>>> >>>>> Please take this image offline immediately. >>>>> >>>>> -Joan "not messing around" Touzet >>>> >>> >
