What Mark meant is if we go through a "vote" then we need to comply to ASF rules. Otherwise anything is up to the project and not a "vote". #semantic ;)
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> 2017-07-07 16:28 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > A release is: > > Majority Approval > Refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three binding > +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes - You have to wait 72h. > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:25, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > This is not a vote for a release, if you get 3+1s within a minute then > you > > don't have to wait 72h. It is 'Consensus Approval'. > > > > Consensus Approval > > 'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has *completed > *with > > at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos > > > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:19, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> You know how voting works at the ASF? ;) > >> > >> Either have a VOTE - with all it's implciations - or not. > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > Am 07.07.2017 um 15:41 schrieb Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > >> >: > >> > > >> > There's no 72h waiting period? Just 3+1 to commit. I'd even be for a > >> 2+1. > >> > > >> > As soon as whatever is decided is counted then the commit occurs. That > >> > could be within a few minutes. > >> > > >> > Andy. > >> > > >> > On 7 July 2017 at 14:59, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> +1 well said, Jeff! > >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> strub > >> >> > >> >>> Am 06.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org > >: > >> >>> > >> >>> Lurking on this, I have to underscore what Mark said. > >> >>> > >> >>> Andy, you are pretty correct on nearly every point that you made. > But > >> >> the things stated are more of refining your current process rather > than > >> >> taking RTC for current committers. You already had RTC with PRs from > >> >> outsiders. If that slipped in, it just means that a trusted > committer > >> >> didn’t do their job. It happens. Breaking a trunk build for a day > >> (or > >> >> even a week) is ok. Thats why its trunk. I cannot tell you how many > >> times > >> >> I have downloaded a project’s trunk and things weren’t quite right. > >> >>> > >> >>> Relative to what prompted this RTC discussion again, I think things > >> got > >> >> emotional and people slipped up afterwards. The beauty of all this > is > >> all > >> >> parties shook hands and made up. Problem was more-or-less solved and > >> the > >> >> project was back on track. > >> >>> > >> >>> IMHO, taking on RTC is punitive. It means that you need to reset > the > >> >> way you do things because you cannot do it yourselves. Do you think > >> you > >> >> are at that point? It didn’t look that way to me… but its certainly > >> >> possible based on what is being done behind the scenes. > >> >>> > >> >>> Just some food for thought. > >> >>> > >> >>> Jeff > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The main issue here is that both new and existing developers on the > >> >> project > >> >>>> need breathing space in order to thrive and grow. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The period between releases is for everyone and not just the few. > It > >> is > >> >>>> only 99.99% OK for one or two individuals. Everyone else seems to > be > >> >>>> suffering behind closed doors or in silence, or fighting constant > >> >> mobbing > >> >>>> to the point where 'our' fun project has become too tedious for > many > >> >>>> people's free time. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'm not going to focus on the reasons behind the "Suffocating > >> >> development > >> >>>> environment" thread, only that it was the web 'staging' environment > >> used > >> >>>> for a review, but treated like it was North Korea production > nuclear > >> >> bomb > >> >>>> code. It should have been handled better. We found a resolution the > >> long > >> >>>> way round (github web hosting). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> However, the situation has evolved where existing committers don't > >> >> discuss, > >> >>>> create or assign tickets because they are literally mobbed or > >> hijacked > >> >> by > >> >>>> another committer within minutes. > >> >>>> That is currently so predictable that it has become a kind of > >> un-funny > >> >> joke > >> >>>> even outside of our community. Tickets are often created 'after' a > >> >> commit > >> >>>> with a closed status. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> What needs to change is: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Committers need to be able to take and work on a ticket in peace > over > >> >>>> several days or even weeks, without being trumped due to impatience > >> or > >> >> the > >> >>>> notion of 'I know better'. > >> >>>> Many can only dedicate a finite amount of time, but still need to > >> push > >> >>>> in-progress work regularly - Git makes that easier now. The review > >> >> process > >> >>>> should be a fun and helpful thing. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Committers and new contributors should be encouraged to take > tickets. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> At most, impatience should be directed towards discussion, > motivation > >> >> and > >> >>>> encouragement - It's about team play on a global scale, not 'My way > >> or > >> >> the > >> >>>> highway'. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is often not viable to test the whole project for a small change > >> - It > >> >>>> takes well over two hours. The buildbot is like our buzzer that > says > >> >> "fix > >> >>>> me" - Not revert me, or trash me, or trump me. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Note to self: Why does the word 'trump' feel like it's been > hijacked > >> by > >> >>>> someone?... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The 'buzzer' should be allowed to ring for a day or two, again not > >> >> everyone > >> >>>> stays up the whole night ready to trash a breaking commit. They go > to > >> >>>> sleep, get up, go to work, get home, eat... and then check the > build > >> if > >> >>>> they have time the next day. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is OK to break the build. Everyone gets to have a go at that and > >> >> learn > >> >>>> from it. Over and over. We don't release broken builds, only the > good > >> >> ones > >> >>>> in-between. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Any disagreement at any level goes to a vote. The majority wins. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think a trial RTC policy can help achieve these goals as it > forces > >> >>>> community involvement - A good thing. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Andy. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 5 July 2017 at 23:02, Jonathan Gallimore < > >> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Are you referring to the changes in the "Suffocating development > >> >>>>> environment" thread, or something else? In my view, the patch Andy > >> >> applied > >> >>>>> last week had very limited review (1 person), and the revert had > no > >> >> review. > >> >>>>> We've seen contributions come in through GitHub PRs (which is > >> great), > >> >> but > >> >>>>> also applied directly to the repository by committers without > >> further > >> >>>>> discussion (less great), effectively meaning just 1 reviewer - I'm > >> not > >> >> sure > >> >>>>> that's really the spirit of RTC. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Jon > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Mark Struberg > >> >> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> As far as I recall the original issue was initially caused by > >> >> applying a > >> >>>>>> PR. > >> >>>>>> That means we had this very issue with a commit which had RTC in > >> >> place. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Draw your own conclusions... > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> LieGrue, > >> >>>>>> strub > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Am 05.07.2017 um 14:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> >>>>>>> : > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Hmm, let put it in a raw way: can we skip the asf list on these > >> >>>>>>> discussions? Literally means can be use the way everybody uses > for > >> >> RTC, > >> >>>>>> ie > >> >>>>>>> github PRs *only*. If not I don't see the point to use it since > >> >>>>>>> contributors we got are mainly github/jira and I think it is > >> natural > >> >>>>> as a > >> >>>>>>> contributor to use these media instead of the list. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Can we somehow merge the github flow with the mailing in a > >> smoother > >> >> way > >> >>>>>>> than the jira integration - and even make jira optional? If not > >> I'm > >> >>>>>> pretty > >> >>>>>>> sure it doesn't need any more evaluation, if we can then it can > be > >> >>>>> great > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>>> benefit from github well known flow. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> To rephrase it to maybe make it even more explicit: it is not > >> about > >> >>>>>> making > >> >>>>>>> our - as committers - work easier but making contributions > easier. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> 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 13:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > >> >>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>>>> : > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> 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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Andy Gumbrecht > >> >>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Andy Gumbrecht > >> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >> > http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Andy Gumbrecht > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com >
