Some discussion as to what the process might be is probably pretty fundamental to help decide whether its beneficial to project or not. If the proposal was to have 20 +1s and a three week minimum voting period, you might have a different opinion to a process that requires 3 +1s with no minimum voting period (even if your thoughts were 'heck no' and 'no' respectively).
Jon On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > @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 > > >
