On 29 May 17:00, Bjoern Rabenstein wrote: > On 28.05.20 21:30, Julius Volz wrote: > > > > I therefore call a vote for the following proposal: > > > > Allow adding exporters to > > https://prometheus.io/docs/instrumenting/exporters/ > > although the devices or applications that they export data for can already > > be > > monitored via SNMP (and thus via the SNMP Exporter). This proposal does not > > affect other criteria that we may use in deciding whether to list an > > exporter > > or not. > > YES > > It would obviously be better if those exporter listing decisions would > "just work" with best judgement and we didn't need to vote about > individual guideline. However, the discussion in > https://github.com/prometheus/docs/pull/1640 circled back to the SNMP > Exporter argument multiple times. The single person on the one side of > the argument explained their concerns, they were considered, but > failed to convince. With the room leaning so obviously to the other > side, one might ask why that circling back had to happen. The vote can > help here to prune at least one branch of the meandering > discussion. In particular with the often used reasoning that "that's > how we did it before", it's good to know if perhaps "that's not how we > want to do it in the future". > > Having said that, I do believe that we should have a more fundamental > discussion about revising "our" criteria of accepting exporter > listings. My impression is that the way it is done right now doesn't > represent our collective intentions very well. Even worse, I am fairly > certain that the process is partially defeating its purpose. In > particular, instead of encouraging the community to join efforts, we > are causing even more fragmentation. Which is really tragic, given how > much time and effort Brian invests in the review work. Kickstarting > such a discussion has been on my agenda for a long time, but given how > my past attempts to move the needle went, it appeared to be a quite > involved effort, for which I'm lacking the capacity. (Others told me > similar things, which reminds me of the "capitulation" topic in > RFC7282, where people cease to express their point of view because > "they don't have the energy to argue against it". Votes, like this > particular one, might then just be an attempt to get out of the many > branches and loops created by persistently upholding objections that > most of the room considers addressed already.)
Once we have those criterias, it means that we can have a list when you create a PR doc: - Documentation PR - New instrumentation PR Like here: https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/new/choose And that the "intrumentation PR" would lead to a template with a few questions: - Is this exporter blah blah blah? - ... So that triaging could be even faster and people would also know our criterias. > > > -- > Björn Rabenstein > [PGP-ID] 0x851C3DA17D748D03 > [email] bjo...@rabenste.in > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Prometheus Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to prometheus-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/20200529150058.GS2326%40jahnn. -- Julien Pivotto @roidelapluie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prometheus-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/20200529155306.GA30867%40oxygen.
