On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, I agree that dev@ should be a discussion forum and automated > traffic should go elsewhere. I'm in favor of having a reviews@. > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for the reply Todd. Unfortunately it's more systematic than that. >> Apologies for top post but am on my phone. Couple points: >> >> - interested to hear from others besides you on this. No offense but I >> think it's important that project members send email here to reply. >> >> - I hand counted the 4 threads of interest. Didn't run a fancy command >> but to be honest it's more indicative of the broader issue. Things aren't >> always solved through fancy greps and tools like gerrit. This is going to >> be a core issue with Kudu's incubation - how is someone not sitting in a >> cube working on the project who isn't on those tools like gerrit and slack >> which don't exist at the ASF going to join on the project? >> > > What is this, the 90s? We're all in one big open room :) > > But more seriously, and I'm asking because I'm not sure I understand, if > something is "inside the ASF" is it good enough that it doesn't also need > to be on a mailing list? My previous ASF experience is with HBase, where > mail from reviews.apache.org doesn't go to any list (as far as I can > tell). The dev list I'd say is in a more healthy state, but way back I > remember a decision was made to at least keep the "jira status changes" > like CREATED and RESOLVED to keep going there so that people are aware of > what's going on since that community is very Jira-centric. But, the Jira > instance is also inside the walls of the ASF. > Answering myself, HBase's review emails go to Jira, which goes to issues@. Works well when 1 Jira = 1 patch. > > >> >> - Even considering 40 threads I doubt there have only be <= 40 >> *decisions* on the project to date. IOW they are being made somewhere but >> it's unclear where. Email is easy to follow on a phone on the go whatever. >> > > TBH there hasn't been that many decisions since incubation, a lot of what > we're working on at least on the Cloudera side is stuff found in the design > docs Mike is referring to that we just pick and go with. It's true that a > lot of the finer grained discussions take place on gerrit. > > >> >> As a mentor I would not be comfortable with Kudu being a TLP at this >> point bc frankly projects need to use their dev list for more than >> automated discussion and big reports. Simple as that and sending a >> transcript of where convo is happening elsewhere is not going to cut it >> unfortunately. >> > > You're right, we need to be better at this. > > >> >> Email is slow and deliberate and not as fast or slick as gerrit etc, but >> that's a good thing. It allows people the time needed to read and join an >> OSS community. It's too hard to do that with Kudu right now. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hey Chris, >> > >> > Responses inline: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Team, >> >> >> >> I looked at: >> >> >> >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev >> >> >> >> And over the last 4 months and Kudu’s inception, we have had >> >> well over 2k+ emails, and looking back I found 4 actual threads >> >> during that time (and one of which was a release VOTE thread) >> >> that wasn’t automatically generated by Gerrit. >> >> >> >> Mar 2016 438 >> >> Feb 2016 1003 >> >> Jan 2016 1143 >> >> Dec 2015 12 >> > >> > Hmm, I did a search in my inbox for: [email protected] >> -gerrit >> > -jira -"git commit" -dev-help -"svn commit" -moderate -"git push >> summary" >> > and counted 30-35 threads. You're right, of course, that JIRA and gerrit >> > eclipse the amount of email discussion, though. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If we are going to become an ASF top level project, the project >> >> discussion has to happen on the mailing list. We had similar >> >> issues in Spark and I realize that lots of project work is assisted >> >> by tools and other technologies, but at the ASF, “if it didn’t >> >> happen on the mailing list, it didn’t happen.” More-over it’s hard >> >> to parse signal from noise in all these automated messages. Frankly >> >> I don’t really know if anything good is going on - I know things >> >> are going on, and I assume they are good, but it’s extremely hard >> >> to verify that. >> > >> > I think it's worth noting that the "automated' messages are typically >> code >> > review requests and responses, which are developer discussion. Our >> > project's culture is usually to use JIRAs and/or 'work-in-progress' >> patches >> > in gerrit to communicate when we find a bug or want an opinion on >> > something. For example, today I found a new bug >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-1369 and wrote up a quick >> > work-in-progress for a a proposed solution and put it up at >> > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2514/ . I think it would be >> redundant >> > to also send an email to the list saying "Hey guys, I found a bug, >> here's a >> > description". >> > >> > The same goes for design discussion -- eg >> > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2443/ is a recent gerrit post that >> Dan >> > made for a new feature he's working on. In this case he also sent an >> email >> > to the dev list to point out the gerrit in case anyone missed it. I >> imagine >> > a lot of people would filter the gerrit emails out of their inbox but >> not >> > direct emails to the list (gerrit provides both headers and a subject >> line >> > tag to make it easy to do) >> > >> > In terms of daily dev discussion, most of it has been happening on our >> > Slack -- eg earlier today three contributors were discussing in-progress >> > efforts on Spark RDD integration and sharing code via that channel. >> Most of >> > the community members we've seen so far have tended to prefer this quick >> > back-and-forth for discussion. >> > >> > Of course any _decisions_ will be made on the mailing list. If you >> think it >> > would be useful to send a daily slack log to the mailing list, we can do >> > that as well. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> I have a possible suggestions: >> >> >> >> * Create a [email protected] and send all automated >> >> traffic there. *-issues is one option; we could make another name for >> >> it. >> > >> > Sure, we could do that. But, isn't it just as easy for people to set up >> a >> > filter for 'kudu-CR' if they want to move those messages elsewhere? Our >> > initial motivation when setting up mailing lists was to avoid having too >> > many (makes it a pain for people to subscribe to them all). >> > >> > >> >> >> >> That will help to separate the signal from the noise in terms of >> >> dev/architectural/etc. discussions from code reviews and automated >> >> commit messages. >> >> >> >> One thing you may say is that dev/architectural discussions are >> happening >> >> but they are in Gerrit. I would then say it’s extremely difficult to >> >> separate the signal from the noise here, and as such, could be >> contributing >> >> towards making it difficult for others to join the project, something >> >> that we identified as an issue in our Incubator report. >> > >> > Right. One option is that, for patches with bigger discussion, we can >> add a >> > gerrit "reviewer" which is actually the dev mailing list. This would >> cause >> > the discussion to be CCed there, and bring it to the attention of more >> > people. Another thought is to do as you suggest above and move gerrit >> > elsewhere, and just have a policy that whenever any gerrit starts >> getting >> > architectural, that we send a ping to the dev mailing list to point it >> out >> > (as Dan did with his recent design doc). >> > >> > -Todd >> > >
