Guys, I thought a bit more and looks like there is no conflict. Every IEP has a sponsor responsible for keeping it up to date. Let's agree that it is up to him how to organize tickets provided that they can be tracked from WIKI page easily. This way we will be able to use both approaches.
Makes sense? I will start describing the process shortly, and then invite community to review it. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Nikita Ivanov <nivano...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on idea (long overdue) and +1 on using epics in JIRA for grouping IEPs. > > -- > Nikita Ivanov > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Vladimir, > > > > I support your initiative because it sorts things out and brings more > > transparency to Ignite community. > > > > The only moment that bothers me is how the tickets, falling into a > > specific IEP, are *grouped in JIRA*. Instead of labels I would advise us > to > > use umbrella tickets or epics. I prefer epics more because they are the > > same umbrella tickets but with special visibility and tracking support > from > > JIRA side. > > > > So if we consider epics as the way we group the relevant tickets in JIRA > > and keep the rest content in the IEP form on Wiki than it should help us > > benefit from both approaches. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:50 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I'd like to discuss an idea of adding "Enhancement Proposal" concept to > > our > > > process. Many other OSS vendors use it with great success ([1], [2], > [3], > > > [4]), so I think we can also benefit from it. > > > > > > **Motivation** > > > Ignite project lacks transparency. We have a lot of thoughts and plans > in > > > our heads. Some of them are materialized to tickets and discussions, > some > > > don't. And yet there is no single place where one can understand major > > > features and challenges of the product for the nearest perspective. We > do > > > not understand our own roadmap. > > > > > > Another problem is that our WIKI is full of trash - lots and lots of > > > outdated design documents and discussions. > > > > > > With Ignite Enhancement Proposal (IEP) process we can move all major > > > changes to a single place, thus increasing our understanding of the > > product > > > and community involvement. > > > > > > **Proposal** > > > 1) Create separate page on WIKI [5] where process flow will be defined > > > 2) Create sections for active and inactive/rejected proposals > > > 3) Every proposal should have separate page with the following fields: > > > - ID > > > - Summary > > > - Author > > > - Sponsor/shepherd/etc - committer or PMC member who will help author > > drive > > > the process > > > - Status (DRAFT, ACTIVE, COMPLETED, REJECTED) > > > - "Motivation" section > > > - "Description" section where actual design will reside > > > - "Risks and Assumptions" section > > > - Links to external resources, dev-list discussions and JIRA tickets > > > 4) Sponsor is responsible for keeping the page up to date > > > 5) Discussions should happen outside of WIKI - on the dev-list or > inside > > > JIRA tickets > > > 6) Relevant JIRA tickets will be tracked with special labels, e.g. > > "iep-N" > > > [6] > > > > > > I created sample page for binary format improvements (still raw enough) > > [7]. > > > > > > Please share your thoughts. > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ > > > [2] > > > https://hazelcast.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COM/pages/ > > 27558010/Hazelcast+Enhancement+Proposals > > > [3] https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP > > > [4] https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html > > > [5] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > action?pageId=73638545 > > > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6057 > > > [7] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP- > > 1%3A+Bulk+data+loading+performance+improvements > > > > >
