> The only point worth attending to while drafting the new process is how to avoid neglected out-of-date proposals. If a proposal was declined, who is in charge to update its status in the readme?
That is a good point. IMO, everyone is able to correct the proposal status. It wasn't easy for us before, only the committer could update the wiki page. Of course, in most cases, it is done by the author. But this is not 100% guaranteed. We should add this part to the proposal process. > There is something appealing in not merging a PR proposal, as this status update takes care of itself (borrowing from rust RFC). The problem I thought of not merging the PR proposal is the proposal looks like the proposed changes never end. The author can continue to update after approved. I don't want to say all the changes to the proposal need to be voted on the mailing list, but we should get a chance to review the changes. Thanks, Penghui On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:45 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the idea of keeping the suggestions as files in the repo since as > you mentioned, it makes the review process using PRs much more streamlined. > > I think keeping the status in an MD file and only there (having a single > source of truth) will make it less error-prone (people might forget to move > between directories) , and also easier to have a single page to view all > proposals. > > The only point worth attending to while drafting the new process is how to > avoid neglected out-of-date proposals. If a proposal was declined, who is > in charge to update its status in the readme? > There is something appealing in not merging a PR proposal, as this status > update takes care of itself (borrowing from rust RFC). > > One bonus item is that I learned through this long discussion thread about > Zulip chat :) > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I will merge https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17270 first and > draft a > > proposal for > > the detailed PIP process changes. And will start a new VOTE thread for > the > > PIP process change. > > > > After the proposal(for PIP process change) is approved. I will go back > here > > to discuss > > how to migrate the old PIPs to the codebase(because we need to follow > > the new format of PIPs). > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:20 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Using a directory structure to organize PIP status might make the git > > > history a bit less direct because changing state is equivalent with a > > > file move instead of a line updated in a file. However, if we do it > > > that way, we could have a README.md file organizing PIP metadata and > > > linking to the actual PIP file in the directory structure. That > > > README.md would also serve as the source of truth for PIP numbers > > > because each PIP pointer would get its associated line number. Then, > > > concurrent PIPs would need to resolve merge conflicts just before > > > merging and only then would they acquire their number. > > > > > > Oh, get your point, Michael. I think this solution looks better. We can > > > also > > > add something in README.md and users can also get the complete > > > proposal list here. In the future, maybe we can show it on the website. > > > > > > Best, > > > Penghui > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:16 PM Michael Marshall < > mmarsh...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > We should move to the codebase 100% the same as the original > > >> documentation. > > >> > And use another PR to make improvements for it. If it is needed, we > > >> should > > >> > start with an email. > > >> > We need to have historical records. > > >> > > >> +1 I think this is a great idea. It makes sense to copy them verbatim > > >> and then worry about updating them in a second step. > > >> > > >> Using a directory structure to organize PIP status might make the git > > >> history a bit less direct because changing state is equivalent with a > > >> file move instead of a line updated in a file. However, if we do it > > >> that way, we could have a README.md file organizing PIP metadata and > > >> linking to the actual PIP file in the directory structure. That > > >> README.md would also serve as the source of truth for PIP numbers > > >> because each PIP pointer would get its associated line number. Then, > > >> concurrent PIPs would need to resolve merge conflicts just before > > >> merging and only then would they acquire their number. > > >> > > >> - Michael > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:15 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Xiangying, > > >> > > > >> > > We can classify the pips under these folders according to the > pulsar > > >> > modules, instead of just placing these pips under these folders in > an > > >> > incrementing sequence number. > > >> > > > >> > I think it's not easy to do this. A proposal can have changes > related > > to > > >> > multiple > > >> > modules(Broker, Metadata, Client). > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Penghui > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 9:20 AM Xiangying Meng < > xiangy...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Penghui > > >> > > Thanks for you start this discussion. IMO, It is also a good way > for > > >> > > beginners to learn the design and implementation of each module of > > >> Pulsar. > > >> > > > 3. /wiki/pip/accepted - for PIPs that have been accepted and are > > >> works in > > >> > > progress > > >> > > > 4. /wiki/pip/complete - for PIPs that have been completed. > > >> > > > 5. /wiki/pip/rejected - for PIPs that were proposed, but then > > >> rejected or > > >> > > abandoned. > > >> > > We can classify the pips under these folders according to the > pulsar > > >> > > modules, instead of just placing these pips under these folders in > > an > > >> > > incrementing sequence number. > > >> > > > > >> > > In this way, readers can create a new local branch dedicated to > > >> reading and > > >> > > annotating proposals for themselves to read proposals they are > > >> interested > > >> > > in and write their own understanding and comments anytime and > > >> anywhere. > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Xiangying Meng > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:23 AM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Dave, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Let’s outline how PIPs are currently working and then discuss > > >> changes. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Yes, I will prepare for the changes. > > >> > > > This is the documentation for how PIPs are currently working: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17270/files#diff-a56445d038f8a3df4c74724076c62437915f091437b4e26a1c5aada7184dcffd > > >> > > > The mailing list discussion: > > >> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/m8dr0hz7qn7rkd48bcp430lcq2q3674g > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, I will start a new discussion with the new changes to > the > > >> current > > >> > > > process. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I’m not sure what is meant by putting the PIP into the > > “codebase”. > > >> > > > > Is the proposal to create PIPs here? > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/wiki > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Just move out from > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/wiki to > > >> > > > Pulsar codebase /wiki/proposals > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I think that a directory structure / convention could be used > > for > > >> pip > > >> > > > status: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1. /wiki/pip/discussion - for PIPs being discussed and > > specified. > > >> > > > > 2. /wiki/pip/proposed - for PIPs ready to be formally > DISCUSSED > > >> and > > >> > > VOTED > > >> > > > > 3. /wiki/pip/accepted - for PIPs that have been accepted and > are > > >> works > > >> > > in > > >> > > > progress > > >> > > > > 4. /wiki/pip/complete - for PIPs that have been completed. > > >> > > > > 5. /wiki/pip/rejected - for PIPs that were proposed, but then > > >> rejected > > >> > > or > > >> > > > abandoned. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I think it's a good point, I don't see any obvious cons. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Penghui > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:40 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Aug 23, 2022, at 10:22 AM, Rajan Dhabalia < > > >> dhabalia...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> I think we can move all the PIPs to the codebase and the > > new > > >> > > > proposal > > >> > > > > > and proposal without any reviews should happen with a PR > > first. > > >> So > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > we > > >> > > > > > can review and comment easily. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I didn't understand this part. You want one to create a PR > > >> before > > >> > > > > > submitting a proposal? That's clearly not a good idea > because > > >> if the > > >> > > > PIP > > >> > > > > > approach will change then the entire development effort will > > be > > >> > > wasted > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > that's the whole purpose of PIP. I guess creating PIP into > an > > >> issue > > >> > > and > > >> > > > > > discussing the issue is definitely working and it's an > easier > > >> way to > > >> > > > > > discuss quickly rather than discussing over email threads. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Let's not change this practice without good discussion and > > >> agreement > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > > > the community. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Agreed let’s have a PIP Discussion here to carefully outline > how > > >> the > > >> > > PIP > > >> > > > > process will change. I don’t think that a new PIP should be > > overly > > >> > > > planned > > >> > > > > or implemented before the idea is more fully discussed and > > >> accepted. > > >> > > The > > >> > > > > Apache Way always works best with small incremental and > > reversible > > >> > > steps. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Let’s outline how PIPs are currently working and then discuss > > >> changes. > > >> > > > I’m > > >> > > > > not sure what is meant by putting the PIP into the “codebase”. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Is the proposal to create PIPs here? > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/wiki > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I think that a directory structure / convention could be used > > for > > >> pip > > >> > > > > status: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. /wiki/pip/discussion - for PIPs being discussed and > > specified. > > >> > > > > 2. /wiki/pip/proposed - for PIPs ready to be formally > DISCUSSED > > >> and > > >> > > VOTED > > >> > > > > 3. /wiki/pip/accepted - for PIPs that have been accepted and > are > > >> works > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > progress > > >> > > > > 4. /wiki/pip/complete - for PIPs that have been completed. > > >> > > > > 5. /wiki/pip/rejected - for PIPs that were proposed, but then > > >> rejected > > >> > > or > > >> > > > > abandoned. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > Dave > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > Rajan > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 8:27 AM PengHui Li < > > peng...@apache.org> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Currently, the new proposal will be added to the issue list > > >> and then > > >> > > > > shared > > >> > > > > >> link in the email > > >> > > > > >> to request the proposal review. It's really hard to review > a > > >> long > > >> > > > > proposal > > >> > > > > >> if you want to comment > > >> > > > > >> in detail. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Here is an example: > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16763#issuecomment-1219606491 > > >> > > > > >> This seems very unintuitive. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> I think we can move all the PIPs to the codebase and the > new > > >> > > proposal > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > >> proposal without > > >> > > > > >> any reviews should happen with a PR first. So that we can > > >> review and > > >> > > > > >> comment easily. > > >> > > > > >> Certainly, all the votes should happen on the mailing list. > > >> And we > > >> > > can > > >> > > > > also > > >> > > > > >> discuss the > > >> > > > > >> proposal on the mailing list. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Following this way, we don't need to sync the PIPs from the > > >> issue to > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > >> wiki page. > > >> > > > > >> We can just add a link that points to the PIPs dir to the > > >> > > contribution > > >> > > > > >> guide or README. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> We have another pain point about the duplicated PIP number. > > We > > >> can > > >> > > > > maintain > > >> > > > > >> a file, a list of > > >> > > > > >> all the proposal contains the approved, in-review, > drafting. > > >> Before > > >> > > > > >> creating a proposal, we should > > >> > > > > >> have a discussion first on the mailing list, just get > > feedback > > >> on > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> motivation. If there are no objections, > > >> > > > > >> the proposal owner can add a line to the file with the PIP > > >> number > > >> > > > > through a > > >> > > > > >> PR, like PIP-123: xxx (Under Discussion). > > >> > > > > >> So that we can prevent the duplicated PIP number(which will > > >> conflict > > >> > > > if > > >> > > > > >> someone merged first). > > >> > > > > >> After the PR is merged, we can send out a new PR to add the > > >> > > proposal. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> Penghui > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
