Well, I'd imagine that [DISCUSS] threads is the nurturing ground for assessing the sense of large developments.
Once there's an issue in GH, that would be the place to continue the discussion and once there code + a PR that would be the place where the discussion happens side-by-side the code. When it comes to voting, there's little question about releases, but for every PR seems like the process step too much. I agree with prior speakers that getting the PR/branch protection setup right. E.g. requiring approval from at least 1 of a subset of people (which once graduated would be Pekko PMC). I think this can be achieved with CODEOWNERS + a team handle setup. On 2022/10/27 09:57:41 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Johannes and PJ. > I'm working on some Apache projects, and only "big" > changes/refactoring are discussed on the mailing list (you can take a > look at the Karaf dev mailing list as example). > As an example, we launched Karaf Minho in the community. As it's a > major refactoring/subproject in Karaf, we discussed it on the mailing > list and we voted for Minho. > I would say that the "regular" project activity goes on GitHub issues or Jira. > > I think it's great to: > - create issues and corresponding PRs for each bug fix/new > feature/improvement. Community can comment on the issue and/or PR. > - as soon as you consider the change bigger, where community consensus > or advice makes sense, than we can go on discussion/vote on the dev > mailing list > > As reminder, during the incubation phase, we have three main objectives: > - mentor/explain/adopt the Apache way > - build and grow the community (involving promotion of the project, etc) > - follow incubator/Apache rules in terms of releases, legal, trademarks, IP, etc > These three main objectives are detailed in the maturity model matrix > that we will have to complete before talking about graduation as TLP. > > Let's keep the fluidity and moving forward on project bootstrap ;) > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:57 AM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree with Johannes. I've been involved with a few ASF projects and > > have not come across a need for formal mailing list votes on code > > changes. Maybe this is the norm but I'd be interested in seeing a > > project that has this project to review how it works in practice. > > > > My default position matches Johannes'. I'd fear that development would > > be significantly slower with having to vote on everything and will > > team members be up for having so many votes? By all means, if the PR > > goes to discussion and the discussion shows some variety in opinions, > > then a vote may be a good way to proceed. > > > > One compromise perhaps would be to set some minimum time before a PR > > can be merged - to allow some time for team members to review. It > > probably would not be ideal to get a PR and have it get 2 positive > > reviews and it then be merged all on the same day. > > > > Another thing we need to decide fairly soon is the branching strategy. > > There has been some discussion about producing a Pekko release > > candidate that closely matches Akka 2.6.x (last Apache licensed > > release versions, generally) but there also appears to be some support > > for making some changes. We could have a branch dedicated to the 2nd > > release so that PRs that are not for the 1st release can be merged and > > not go stale. We would probably need some guidelines about which > > branches PRs should target. > > > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 09:34, Johannes Rudolph > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks everyone for setting this project up! > > > > > > Please pardon my ignorance of the details of common Apache processes, > > > I guess this proposal is modeled after existing Apache projects. > > > > > > The process states: > > > > > > > All pull requests for code changes (e.g. changes that modify the code execution) > > > > > > > > - must be associated with an issue. > > > > - must be reviewed and approved by at least two committers who are not the developer(s). > > > > - must be voted on in the development list using the code modifications process documented in the Apache voting process document > > > > > > The latter two points seem somewhat redundant. What's the rationale > > > behind having this double process of gathering reviewing approvals > > > first and then another vote on the mailing list? How does that usually > > > work in practice? > > > > > > I understand (and agree) that the dev mailing list should be the > > > definitive place to gather information and decide on development, so > > > it's nice that you can just follow it and will never miss something. > > > On the other hand, there's a continuum between trivial documentation > > > changes and a significant functional code change. E.g. there are > > > non-trivial code changes that are still small and might suffer from > > > the extra overhead of the full process of review + vote. > > > > > > I'd propose to make review approvals on Github PRs binding in general > > > but allow reviewers to promote a change to a discussion (+ vote) on > > > the mailing list if deemed necessary (i.e. make the third point > > > optional as long as no one objects to it). > > > > > > Are there existing Apache Projects that we could take as an example? > > > (E.g. Kafka? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Johannes > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
