@Andy: discussion is not if the process is easy or not but if it would be beneficial to the project.
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 16:40 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > If someone comes up 'after' the Consensus Approval (3+1) with a -1 then > they must submit a counter PR, that must also pass the RTC. > > It's pretty straight forward. > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:36, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > ;-) > > > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:34, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > wrote: > > > >> RTC is Consensus Approval and does not need 72h, just 3+1 in any amount > >> of time. > >> > >> On 7 July 2017 at 16:33, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Those quotes are from Apache. > >>> > >>> On 7 July 2017 at 16:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 >
