On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> The subject of this thread is intended to cover the multiple incidents of > the past and address the increasing number of current and future concerns > coming from multiple contributors, that will remain anonymous for obvious > reasons. I am just being the voice with broad shoulders here. > I understand. I think you're trying to avoid a "witch hunt" which is good. However, I think it is reasonable to "call out" specific actions politely, and suggest some alternatives, so we all learn and can progress as a team. We're all grown ups, and I'm sure we can have positive discussions and all be stronger as a result. The problem with anonymity and broadly shouldering the complaints of a number contributions generically, is it makes it hard to know what you're specifically referring to, and therefore makes it harder for people to learn what's an issue and what needs to improve. I am by no means perfect (ask anyone, I'm sure they'll confirm that...), so if I do something wrong, or could do better, I'd prefer to know about it, and I'd prefer to know the specifics so I can grow, learn and help others. I prefer it if the feedback is polite, and filled with suggestions on "the right way(s)", of course. > > In this instance there were basically two simple human errors that > should/would have been resolved in an orderly manner. They only serve as > the example of how the current climate is, and why we should consider > changing it for the benefit of the community. The thread topic should still > be the focus. > > 1. The project was checked in missing the target svn ignore and it was > never subsequently fixed, so the add pulled in target. This was only > noticed during a commit in action. On attempting to rectify this simple > mistake less than one minute later someone had already took it upon > themselves to trash all commits rather than allow the problem to be > resolved in an orderly fashion either through the ticket in progress or > email - this came after the effect, i.e too late. Obviously this action led > to multiple conflicts. Making it virtually impossible to recover. > > 2. The deployment to staging has often been used to provide access for > review purposes in the past, but as Romain rightly points out there are > risks involved in doing that, and a better way is to use the personal http > spaces at Apache. The risks were still trivial and could be reverted in a > matter of minutes if the staging were to be inadvertently published, but > still agree that the personal space is the right place. That still does not > warrant trashing someone else's work, ever. The problem should have been > addressed appropriately. Acting in any other way is always going to inflame > a situation, every time, without fail. Who likes having their evenings work > deleted? Having it corrected is generally welcome I would guess. > A quick discussion of rollback / fail-forward on the dev list would have resolved all of that easily, in my opinion. Side note, the use of personal http space at Apache seems like a great way to review patches. The documentation should include a reference to that. > > Both actions and the ensuing assertion in comments that the effort was only > made in determent to the project, or only for the benefit of a third party > company, is derogatory and inflammatory. Especially from whence it came and > the potential conflict of interests involved already. This will again > always result in a defensive response when it is simply not true. It will > never result in a submissive response. > > Either way, the introduction of a 2 or 3 plus one workflow will completely > mitigate any future issues like this. No one makes a commit with the > intention of breaking something. Commits are made every day across the > world that *do* break something. Everyone needs to understand that, and > respond appropriately. Especially on an global OSS project where people > are dedicating their free time. TomEE is *not* a nuclear bomb that cannot > be touched for fear of it exploding between stable releases. Version > control is our saving grace. Community contributors need breathing space to > grow into the project. Everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes should not be a > means used to alienate new contributions, only as a tool to guide real > people with real feelings in the right direction. > > To finish off. If work by contributors spans several days, or even weeks, > then so be it. TomEE is not a full time project for many contributors. Most > here have a life outside of the box and can only dedicate a limited amount > of time. This means that it is simply not feasible to expect feature > complete patches or commits. Incremental work must even be encouraged, as > every step counts. The impatient must learn to become patient, and not > trash incremental contributions. > I agree. I think that "Everybody should get to play", and we as committers and PMC members should encourage that in order to bring new contributors into the project, and steer them in the right direction. Things will break from time-to-time, which means we need to be diligent about checking builds and careful when creating releases, but it shouldn't discourage people from having a go. As I've already stated, I'm in favour of more discussion and review on dev@, even for what may appear to be trivial changes. Jon > > Andy. > > On 28 June 2017 at 12:35, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2017-06-28 11:39 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > > : > > > > > Wow. > > > > > > Well, thanks for writing the email, and starting the discussion. From > > where > > > I'm sitting, it looks like there are a few issues. I'll work in > > reverse-ish > > > order (in terms of your post). > > > > > > -- Reverting commits. > > > > > > I've seen the reverts - I also note that other than on a JIRA ticket, > > there > > > was zero conversation on the dev@ list. This isn't the first time that > > > this > > > has happened, and in my opinion, is fundamentally wrong. If there is a > > > genuine need to revert something, you need to post to the dev@ list, > > call > > > out the commit, and say why it needs reverting. The person proposing > the > > > revert should be prepared to have a should we "roll-back or > fail-forward" > > > conversation in the community, and not simply take it upon themselves > to > > > make that choice. Folks might be wondering why we need to do this (I > > think > > > there is a perception that their mail might not be read, so why bother > > > posting) - reasons are simple: > > > > > > * Encourage discussion and contribution - discuss the specific issues. > > What > > > stopped working? Does the committer know what they broke, or what the > > > reason for proposing a roll-back is > > > * Co-ordinate - if something breaks in a commit, deciding who's going > to > > > help fix what might be better than rolling back > > > * Educate - is there a process where something in staging becomes live > > > automatically? Is that what we tried to avoid this time? Is there a > > better > > > way to build the site and stage it for peer review? > > > > > > > FYI > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-svn-commit- > > r1800091-in-tomee-site-trunk-content-content-admin-content- > > admin-cluster-content-admi-td4681967.html > > was intented to host that discussion (and not pollute jira) > > > > Note that it is what happent most of the time, not sure why these dev > mails > > are missed. > > > > > > > > > > All of the above potential (and that's just off the top of my head, I'm > > > sure there is more) was lost by the 'silent revert'. The view the > > committer > > > / contributor has becomes "my stuff was rejected without comment and > > > without discussion, why should I bother?" and the damage to community > > > starts / continues. In my opinion, simply reverting commits without > > > appropriate discussion on dev@ needs to stop, right now. We need to > > > nurture > > > contributions, not simply reject them. > > > > > > I saw one point about breaking the build, and the build not being fixed > > > quickly enough. Again, I think that needs to be called out and > discussed > > > how to fix (rollback or fail-forward), as opposed to commits being > > rejected > > > or reverted without discussion. It also needs to be understood and > > accepted > > > that we will need to have that sort of conversation each time it > happens. > > > Even if a change breaks something, I don't think anyone should have > > "carte > > > blanche" to revert commits without discussion on dev@. > > > > > > -- Making changes. > > > > > > So let's talk about the elephant that isn't in the room. Simply put, > > there > > > isn't enough discussion on dev@ and there is virtually no peer review > at > > > all. Andy, I wasn't aware that you'd be pushing stuff to staging, and > so > > > those commits, from where I was sitting, came out of the blue. I will > > note > > > that there was some discussion around TomEE documentation, which is > > great, > > > but the commits I saw were so big that I couldn't get a diff of them. I > > > will go through and review, but that is going to take some time. At the > > > moment, I don't know what the changes were so I can't really comment on > > the > > > specifics. There was no invitation to review or discuss. There was no > > > discussion around the process of building a local copy of the website > and > > > maybe staging it somewhere else to facilitate that review. The > > > documentation on contributing to the website and review changes is, I > > > suspect, somewhat lacking. > > > > > > > raw doc to do an update/submit a patch is > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/site/trunk/ > generators/site-tomee-ng/ > > README.adoc > > > > then it is just a matter of synching target/site-tomee-ng* with content/ > of > > the site (pubsub). We can surely setup pubsub mvn plugin to make it > > smoother if needed. > > > > > > > > > > You mention that you were mentoring a contributor - you don't mention > > who, > > > but I'm assuming its Ivan Junckes for a bunch of reasons, but mostly > > > because of his conversations on the TomEE documentation thread. Please > > > correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, whoever it is, we'd love to see more > > > contributions from you. I understand that this negative experience > might > > > leave a bad taste, but it would be great if you bear with us and please > > > carry on - I am very hopeful that we can improve, and in turn, enable > you > > > to contribute more and help the community grow. We would appreciate > your > > > feedback to help us do so. > > > > > > While I saw some patches attached to the JIRA, I think a better process > > > would have been to have contributor talk about their patch on dev@, > how > > to > > > build it and review, and what what the changes are. It seems like > we're > > > relying on JIRA heavily, almost as a replacement for this mailing list > - > > > that should stop too. Discussions should happen on dev@ and give > people > > > the > > > chance to respond. One side note on that - I really don't want to see a > > lot > > > of "lazy consensus", where "I didn't get a reply in 72 hours and 1 > second > > > so clearly everyone agrees" - if you get no replies - follow up. > Provide > > > more information. Ask what people need to make replying easier. Do they > > > need a test to run, or a simple command to execute? More description? A > > > report showing library changes? A copy of the website running somewhere > > to > > > review? The easier it is to reply, the quicker the responses will be. > > Also > > > accept that people may just *need more time*. Like many, I have a busy > > > full-time job, and invariably I sometimes have to work a bit extra at > > that. > > > I also have two demanding kids to entertain, feed and put to bed. > Things > > > seemed so much simpler back in 2007, as I had more time. I'll do > > anything I > > > can, but a 72 hour deadline is sometimes just not long enough. > > > > > > As an example of discussing before committing, I proposed a patch here: > > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MDB-JMX-Control- > td4681962.html > > - > > > I have had a couple of items of feedback (thank you Romain and > > Jonathan!). > > > I now need to follow up on that discussion, update my patch and push > the > > > discussion on again, whilst also trying to obtain some more views for > the > > > discussion. I have another patch which is a little more complex which > > I'll > > > be proposing today as well. Please note that I am not saying I am > > perfect, > > > and I am not saying those conversations are perfect either, but > hopefully > > > they provide something to think about and improve upon. > > > > > > > It is best done this way but I think - correct me if wrong - it is fine > to > > push something you think right (speaking of SNAPSHOT, not the website for > > the already mentionned reasons) and then got a ping on the list saying > "hey > > man you broke something, if you dont fix it now i'll revert it and we'll > > see how to add it back". We all do it on our free time so I tend to > > encourage action and hard fixes when needed than list "idling" which > often > > happens. > > > > > > > > > > So, in summary (TL;DR if you like): > > > > > > * Propose rollbacks on the dev@ with reasons. If you had to -1 > > something, > > > you need to give a visible reason - same should apply here > > > * More discussion on dev@ before commiting > > > * Encourage contributors to present their proposed changes and discuss > > > their diffs on dev@ > > > * Don't rely on JIRA comments for discussions - if it didn't happen on > > the > > > mailing, it didn't happen. > > > > > > > Except the second point it sounds good - but thinking about it this 2nd > > point can need some classification like "bug fix", "regression fix", "new > > feature", "spec impl" or anything enabling to judge if a discussion is > > needed or not. > > > > Also think the first point need its corollar: don't apply a diff which is > > under discussion on the list until it got ack by this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > I hope that my views above are seen as reasonable, balanced and helpful > > > (which is my intent, and how I hope it comes across). > > > > > > Andy, thanks for kicking off this conversation, I too, hope there will > be > > > some good, considered, responses on here. Also thank you for taking the > > > time to work on the documentation with another contributor (Ivan?) - > and > > > thank you to them too. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Andy Gumbrecht < > > agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm writing this on the public dev list as there seems to be inaction > > on > > > > the private list regarding the preservation and nurturing of > > > contributions > > > > to the TomEE project. I hope this serves as an entry into a public > > > > discussion on how to improve or resolve the situation. > > > > > > > > This evening (and late into the night) I was working in my free time > > > > together with another contributor in an effort to improve the > currently > > > > very poor TomEE website. This work was offsite, and being pushed to > > > staging > > > > for peer review. > > > > > > > > It became apparent that another committer deemed it in some way > > > acceptable > > > > to trash this effort 'during' this work without any collaboration > > simply > > > > because they disagree with some of the changes, even when those > changes > > > had > > > > not been finalised. The existence and state of the JIRA ticket was > > > > completely disregarded by this committer. > > > > > > > > This is not the first time that a committer has performed such > arrogant > > > and > > > > destructive actions on other peoples contributions to the project. > Such > > > > actions are always extremely disrespectful at a personal level. This > is > > > of > > > > course reflected by the state of the community that currently feels > > void > > > of > > > > any participation specifically due to this kind of mobbing. It has > > become > > > > virtually impossible for contributors to perform any work on the > > project > > > > without almost instant negative, rather than positive or nurturing, > > input > > > > at every level (even documentation). I know of several potential > > > > contributors who have avoided the project due to this currently very > > > > predictable attitude. It has in fact almost become a joke within > other > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > Maybe speaking for others, it is no secret that some committers do > not > > > get > > > > along with others due to these reasons. However, I do value the > immense > > > > contribution by every committer to the TomEE project and understand > > each > > > > individuals value and rights to and on the project. This does not > mean > > > that > > > > one individual is the owner of this project (we all are) and has the > > > right > > > > to overwrite or trash other peoples work in progress, no one should > > ever > > > > have that sole right. Well actually we all do, and this seems to be > the > > > > fundamental problem. > > > > > > > > We desperately need to instigate some measures to prevent the further > > > > demise of the TomEE community by individuals that seem intent on > > breaking > > > > it for reasons that go beyond me (well actually they don't, but > that's > > > > another story). I believe that there was a past discussion on > > > introducing a > > > > 2 or 3 plus one workflow into the the project, whereby all commits > must > > > > undergo a peer review. This may somewhat stifle rapid development, > but > > on > > > > the other hand it would ensure that commits are stable and not open > to > > > > trashing by others. > > > > > > > > Given that the current JIRA practice is now to commit before creating > > the > > > > actual issue (which has been encouraged by the overly aggressive > > > > environment), the peer review system would also return that process > > back > > > to > > > > a normal and acceptable state. Therefore I would like to suggest we > > begin > > > > taking the necessary steps for the introduction of this process. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to some candid responses. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com >
