SDAP Version Control Management

[Stepheny Perez]

Hi everyone,

I propose we discuss and stick to a version control management practice across 
all SDAP repos moving forward. Currently, our repos are all using different 
branching strategies which makes development and release management difficult. 

I've personally used 
[GitFlow](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow)
 extensively, and have found it to work well and can easily integrate with 
CI/CD. However, the page I linked above seems to indicate this is an older 
strategy and not in line with best practices. Alternatively, we can explore 
[trunk-based 
development](https://www.atlassian.com/continuous-delivery/continuous-integration/trunk-based-development),
 which seems straightforward enough. 

If we were to use something like GitFlow, that might look something like this 
for SDAP:

- `main` branch: contains the latest released code. 
- `release/*` branch: contains candidate release code. PR and merge into `main` 
upon release.
- `develop` branch: contains completed features ready to be pulled into next 
release
- `feature/SDAP-xxx` branch: Feature branch containing changes needed to 
accomplish SDAP-xxx ticket. PR and merge into `develop` branch.

The most important thing is that we are consistent with whatever strategy we 
choose across all SDAP repos. Does anyone have any input as to which strategy 
might suit SDAP best? 

Stepheny

Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members

[Riley Kuttruff]

I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be more 
suitable for 
growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry.

On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote:
> In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC):
>  * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that 
> the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite 
> correctly, doing very little).
>  * Simplicity.
> 
> In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members):
>  * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone the 
> commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice work 
> answering questions or giving conference talks.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung  wrote:
> > 
> > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future
> > committers / PMC members.
> > 
> > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Nga
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Julian,
> >> 
> >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination
> >> process.
> >> 
> >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
> >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
> >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
> >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
> >>> could be all the process we need.
> >>> 
> >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important
> >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we
> >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are*
> >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@:
> >>> 
>  [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer
>  
>  I think Alex Doe has been  doing some good work recently[1]. They have
>  made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have
>  also been answering a lot of questions in the forums.
>  
>  Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of 
>  months?
>  
>  [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe
> >>> 
> >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting
> >>> process is very straightforward.
> >>> 
> >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether
> >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member.
> >>> 
> >>> Julian
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
>  
>  Hi all,
>  
>  While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to 
>  have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members 
>  (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to 
>  establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here 
>  [1] would be fine.
>  
>  Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in 
>  mind.
>  
>  Thanks,
>  Riley
>  
>  [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
> >>> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members

[Julian Hyde]

In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC):
 * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that the 
PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite correctly, 
doing very little).
 * Simplicity.

In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members):
 * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone the 
commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice work 
answering questions or giving conference talks.

Julian


> On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung  wrote:
> 
> I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future
> committers / PMC members.
> 
> What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nga
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Julian,
>> 
>> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination
>> process.
>> 
>> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
>>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
>>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
>>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
>>> could be all the process we need.
>>> 
>>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important
>>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we
>>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are*
>>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@:
>>> 
 [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer
 
 I think Alex Doe has been  doing some good work recently[1]. They have
 made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have
 also been answering a lot of questions in the forums.
 
 Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of 
 months?
 
 [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe
>>> 
>>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting
>>> process is very straightforward.
>>> 
>>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether
>>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member.
>>> 
>>> Julian
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
 
 Hi all,
 
 While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to 
 have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at 
 least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to 
 establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here [1] 
 would be fine.
 
 Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in 
 mind.
 
 Thanks,
 Riley
 
 [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members

[Riley Kuttruff]

I think it's a distinction between project contributor and project management. 

Probably not a big distinction at the moment because the SDAP community is still
relatively small, but that can change.

On 2024/01/16 22:47:12 Nga Chung wrote:
> I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future
> committers / PMC members.
> 
> What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nga
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination
> > process.
> >
> > On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
> > > the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
> > > organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
> > > could be all the process we need.
> > >
> > > KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important
> > > to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we
> > > can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are*
> > > ready. It could be a simple email to private@:
> > >
> > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer
> > > >
> > > > I think Alex Doe has been  doing some good work recently[1]. They have
> > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have
> > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple 
> > > > of months?
> > > >
> > > > [1] 
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe
> > >
> > > In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting
> > > process is very straightforward.
> > >
> > > SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether
> > > it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem 
> > > > to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC 
> > > > members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an 
> > > > effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one 
> > > > outlined here [1] would be fine.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in 
> > > > mind.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Riley
> > > >
> > > > [1] 
> > > > https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
> > >
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members

[Nga Chung]

I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future
committers / PMC members.

What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member?

Thanks,
Nga

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination
> process.
>
> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
> > I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
> > the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
> > organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
> > could be all the process we need.
> >
> > KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important
> > to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we
> > can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are*
> > ready. It could be a simple email to private@:
> >
> > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer
> > >
> > > I think Alex Doe has been  doing some good work recently[1]. They have
> > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have
> > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums.
> > >
> > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of 
> > > months?
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe
> >
> > In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting
> > process is very straightforward.
> >
> > SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether
> > it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to 
> > > have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members 
> > > (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to 
> > > establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here 
> > > [1] would be fine.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in 
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Riley
> > >
> > > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
> >

Re: [EXTERNAL] SDAP Monthly Meeting January 16 at 15:00 US/Pacific, 23:00 UTC

[Julian Hyde]

Since Thomas raises the point, I think it would be a bad idea to “discuss PMC 
process” at the meeting.

Riley started a thread on dev@ on an important topic — how to nominate and vote 
for committers and PMC members. We can agree on a process if people respond to 
the thread and we get to consensus. But right now only I have replied to the 
thread, so we have not achieved consensus, so the process has not been adopted.

As a reminder, the meeting cannot make decisions. It cannot even make the 
observation “There seemed to be general consensus for Riley’s proposal” if that 
observation is intended to be a decision.

I would urge whoever chairs the meeting to curtail discussion of such topics, 
and ask SDAP members to chime in on the dev list.

Julian



> On Jan 16, 2024, at 12:46 PM, Huang, Thomas (US 398F) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I won't be able to join today's meeting. I guess we should discuss 
> about graduation status and PMC process. 
> 
> Public GitHub will be switching to require 2FA in March. Is SDAP affect?
> 
> https://github.blog/2023-03-09-raising-the-bar-for-software-security-github-2fa-begins-march-13/
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Thomas.
> 
>  
> Thomas Huang 
> Group Supervisor, Data Product Generation Software 
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems 
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology 
> (818) 354-2747  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/15/24, 8:10 PM, "Nga Chung"  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Just a friendly reminder that there is an SDAP monthly meeting tomorrow
> Tuesday, January 16 at 15:00 - 16:00 Pacific time.
> 
> 
> Join from the meeting link
> https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://jpl.webex.com/jpl/j.php?MTID=m6d205ee391099975ab22ae1b4a65df53__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!J5oYFTtLRmxZ9a3HJqDTW5UBAtwlIu4lYNkRWI4i263D90w6pUE157anxCSbUoAc3s1_XU8qScciG7_mZ5va62Q$
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Join by meeting number
> Meeting number (access code): 2761 748 8734
> Meeting password: MjdFissq569
> 
> 
> Best,
> Nga
> 
> 
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] SDAP Monthly Meeting January 16 at 15:00 US/Pacific, 23:00 UTC

[Riley Kuttruff]

I don't think 2FA will be an issue for us, so long as everyone already has it 
set up.

On 2024/01/16 20:46:27 "Huang, Thomas (US 398F)" wrote:
> Sorry, I won't be able to join today's meeting. I guess we should discuss 
> about graduation status and PMC process. 
> 
> Public GitHub will be switching to require 2FA in March. Is SDAP affect?
> 
> https://github.blog/2023-03-09-raising-the-bar-for-software-security-github-2fa-begins-march-13/
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Thomas.
> 
>  
> Thomas Huang 
> Group Supervisor, Data Product Generation Software 
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems 
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology 
> (818) 354-2747  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/15/24, 8:10 PM, "Nga Chung"  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Just a friendly reminder that there is an SDAP monthly meeting tomorrow
> Tuesday, January 16 at 15:00 - 16:00 Pacific time.
> 
> 
> Join from the meeting link
> https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://jpl.webex.com/jpl/j.php?MTID=m6d205ee391099975ab22ae1b4a65df53__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!J5oYFTtLRmxZ9a3HJqDTW5UBAtwlIu4lYNkRWI4i263D90w6pUE157anxCSbUoAc3s1_XU8qScciG7_mZ5va62Q$
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Join by meeting number
> Meeting number (access code): 2761 748 8734
> Meeting password: MjdFissq569
> 
> 
> Best,
> Nga
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] SDAP Monthly Meeting January 16 at 15:00 US/Pacific, 23:00 UTC

[Huang, Thomas (US 398F)]

Sorry, I won't be able to join today's meeting. I guess we should discuss about 
graduation status and PMC process. 

Public GitHub will be switching to require 2FA in March. Is SDAP affect?

https://github.blog/2023-03-09-raising-the-bar-for-software-security-github-2fa-begins-march-13/


Thanks

Thomas.

 
Thomas Huang 
Group Supervisor, Data Product Generation Software 
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology 
(818) 354-2747  




On 1/15/24, 8:10 PM, "Nga Chung" mailto:nch...@apache.org>> wrote:


Hi all,


Just a friendly reminder that there is an SDAP monthly meeting tomorrow
Tuesday, January 16 at 15:00 - 16:00 Pacific time.


Join from the meeting link
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://jpl.webex.com/jpl/j.php?MTID=m6d205ee391099975ab22ae1b4a65df53__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!J5oYFTtLRmxZ9a3HJqDTW5UBAtwlIu4lYNkRWI4i263D90w6pUE157anxCSbUoAc3s1_XU8qScciG7_mZ5va62Q$
 

 


Join by meeting number
Meeting number (access code): 2761 748 8734
Meeting password: MjdFissq569


Best,
Nga

Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members

[Riley Kuttruff]

Hi Julian,

That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination 
process.

On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
> could be all the process we need.
> 
> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important
> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we
> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are*
> ready. It could be a simple email to private@:
> 
> > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer
> >
> > I think Alex Doe has been  doing some good work recently[1]. They have
> > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have
> > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums.
> >
> > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of 
> > months?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe
> 
> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting
> process is very straightforward.
> 
> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether
> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member.
> 
> Julian
> 
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to 
> > have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at 
> > least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to 
> > establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here [1] 
> > would be fine.
> >
> > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in mind.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Riley
> >
> > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
>