As I see it, while the recent issue with the documentation was probably the trigger for discussing RTC on dev@, I think the general idea is actually to get more discussion going on around features and fixes, and to encourage more interaction in the review process. We are struggling as a community in that regard. The documentation issue might now be "fixed" by using personal html area usage, but I still think RTC is worthy of consideration. We are seeing some contributions come in from new contributors and we have an opportunity to nurture them through this discussion and review process.
Incidentally, if we trialled RTC and saw improvements, I'd vote to keep it after 3 months and not "safely return back". If we don't see improvements, I'd be trying to think of some other ideas to try. I think we'd all be open to other suggestions as well, but I'm of the view that if we don't try something, then potentially nothing will change. Jon On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-07-05 10:00 GMT+02:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com. > invalid>: > > > Romain>>>>@Gurkan: concretely nothing changed factually since we > discussed > > it and concluded we can't pay the overhead at the moment so why pushing > > it?I looked at the commit history from github ( > https://github.com/apache/ > > tomee/graphs/contributors). Only some couple of members provide > > contributions in last couple of years. We need a more stable/healthy > > community to increase the chance of long living the project. You are > wrong, > > the reason behind the such discussion is not related with prod, website > or > > project source code. We are looking for some alternative solution (at > least > > temporarily) because of the mentioned problems. I suspect that this type > of > > conflicts may occur in the future again. I am pushing this for the > success > > and future of Apache TomEE. I am not a PMC member or committer of TomEE > > project, but I just wanted to give my comments as ASF member. > > > > Don't think so Gurkan, the problem was really bound to end user direct > impact and we tackled it with the personal html area usage we need to > document now. > > > > Regards.Gurkan- > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 10:13:22 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > @Gurkan: concretely nothing changed factually since we discussed it and > > concluded we can't pay the overhead at the moment so why pushing it? > > Concretely the issue was very particular in term of process cause > affecting > > almost directly our "prod" versus our project source doesn't and we can > > therefore tolerate more latency. And side note (probably some wording > issue > > but just to make it obvious if not): if it is to go back to the normal > > process anyway after then we can gain these 3 months and already work as > we > > and we'll do ;). > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2017-07-05 7:28 GMT+02:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com. > > invalid>: > > > > > Hi MarkThis is only for fixing the appeared (very important) problem in > > > the community. So, I don't see what will happen to the project in 3 > > months > > > period with RTC process? So, at least 3 months, every commit will be > > > approved by the community via consensus. After that, we can safely > return > > > back to the normal process. > > > > > > Thanks.Gurkan > > > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 1:15:31 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg > > > <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: > > > > > > RTC in my experience _only_ works on release branches, but is a total > > > community killer on the mainstream branch (master, dev, whatever you > call > > > it). > > > > > > We usually don't have so many concurrent commits on the same topic. > There > > > was recently an exceptional case and it got resolved. > > > Thus -1 > > > > > > Of course discussions might be done first. But not via PR but via mail. > > > Usually the devs have a good feeling about what is sensible and what > not. > > > For some deep change one usually sends a patch first for review. That > is > > > nothing we need to enforce - every good programmer will do just that! > > > Otoh there are 99.99% of stuff which you just get done and commit it. > And > > > if there is something fishy, then it get's caught via the commit log > > mails > > > anyway. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.07.2017 um 10:05 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore < > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:04 AM, David Blevins < > david.blev...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> There’s a discussion on the private list on this topic, but given > the > > > >> recent thread I think it makes sense to move that here. > > > >> > > > >> The vote would be only on this question: > > > >> > > > >> - Is RTC worth trying for 3 months? (+1,+/-0,-1) > > > >> > > > >> I’ve seen some voices in favor, but do not want to propose a vote > > > >> without a heads-up. Specifically, even if many people like the idea > > > >> we should talk about how we want to do it. > > > >> > > > >> # Review-than-commit > > > >> > > > >> For those that do not know, Review-than-commit is essentially what > > > >> Github Pull Requests are. Prior to github, Apache describes them > as: > > > >> > > > >> - Commit policy which requires that all changes receive consensus > > > >> approval in order to be committed. > > > >> > > > >> I think we’ve seen evidence that: > > > >> > > > >> - Slowing ourselves down can be a good thing. > > > >> > > > >> - Moving ahead after discussion is a good thing. Discussion should > > > >> precede even the first commit. > > > >> > > > >> - More eyes and talk around commits can help documentation efforts. > > > >> > > > >> - As 3 +1s are required, a one-to-one conversation with no one else > > > >> included is naturally discouraged. > > > >> > > > >> # Trial basis > > > >> > > > >> My thought is to go RTC for 3 months as a trial. After 3 months, no > > > >> action means we revert back to our present CTR. A new vote would be > > > >> required to continue RTC in any form, as-was or modified. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Unless its obviously unanimous that everyone dislikes RTC at the end > > of 3 > > > > months, I'd suggest we call a vote to decide how to proceed. Not > quite > > > sure > > > > how that fits into +1/0/-1 however, so may be it should be a 3 month > > > trial, > > > > followed by 2 weeks for review and discussion (during which we'd > still > > be > > > > RTC) and then a vote? > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> The trial-basis is to acknowledge that we are voting on a guess of > > > >> potential benefits. This allows us to "try before we buy" and the > > > >> vote really comes down to if we want to try. We need not make a > > > >> decision based on other people's experience and have a means to gain > > > >> our own experience with a built-in escape clause that triggers > lazily. > > > >> > > > >> RTC may sound like a good idea, but our implemention of it may be > bad > > > >> in practise. It may sound like a bad idea, but we may discover > > > >> positives we hadn't anticipated. We don't currently know. > > > >> > > > >> # How would we do it? > > > >> > > > >> Some things that would be good to discuss: > > > >> > > > >> - How could we use github pull requests? Other communities do use > > > >> them and I suspect there are options we have not explored. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'd be in favour of that, as that process seems to be very well > known. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> - Should all reviews be on the dev list? With Github PRs comments > > > >> and JIRA comments, there needs to be a source of truth. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think both the discussion and review should happen on the dev list. > > > > GH/JIRA comments are fine in themselves, but there may be (should be) > > > > discussion on dev@ before a PR is opened, so having all that > > discussion > > > in > > > > one place is important for me. Even if GH comments prove popular, its > > not > > > > hard to copy/paste it to dev@ with a link. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> - Should we fully document the process before we try so we can get > > > >> the most value from a 3 month trial? > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'd be in favour of discussing and documenting. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> David Blevins > > > >> http://twitter.com/dblevins > > > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > >
