Re: Thoughts on how to increase contributions
Hi, just to make these things start moving, * regarding moving to github as primary repo: infra needs a link to a formal [VOTE] thread, so I'll begin one in a minute * regarding committership, the examples provided weren't too accurate ** commons grants commit right to every asf committer on sandbox components (https://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette) ** subversion has the concept of partial committers ( https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#partial-commit-access), and also welcomes any asf committer to commit obvious fixes and patches, as long as the patches have a +1 from a committer ( https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#guest-commiter ) ** not asf related, but Jenkins does something similar ( https://jenkins.io/project/governance/#lower-barrier-of-entry): "by not requiring new contributors to “prove themselves” before they are admitted to the committership. Instead, we assume they are good until proven otherwise" ** my take on this would be something similar to the jenkins model, but I'd really appreciate first commits as PRs, for review.. At least that's what I would do, but not sure if we should enforce this or just see how it unfolds (given that we don't have much activity).. I suppose we would probably also need a formal vote for this, but I'd like to ask what do other people think about this before starting the vote * regarding release trains (aka release every four months), as we have Board reports on months 01, 04, 07 and 10, how about releasing on 02, 05, 08 and 11 (starting next 02)? br, juan pablo On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Dave Koelmeyer < dave.koelme...@davekoelmeyer.co.nz> wrote: > > On 10/11/17 09:57, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: > > * Release at least every four months. Master is deliverable, and it's > been > > getting small fixes and updates every now and then so why not release > every > > (let's say) 4 months? They would be minor releases, but they still would > be > > releases, which would make JSPWiki a little better for end-users so, > again, > > why not? There could be exceptions if needed (i.e. master broken or no > code > > pushed since last release), but I think it would be a good thing(tm) > Hi Juan Pablo > > Establishing regular releases would be fantastic. It would also be good > source material for public-facing marketing material, and help set a > clear message that the project is moving forward. > > Cheers, > Dave > > -- > Dave Koelmeyer > http://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz > GPG Key ID: 0x238BFF87 > >
Re: Thoughts on how to increase contributions
On 10/11/17 09:57, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: > * Release at least every four months. Master is deliverable, and it's been > getting small fixes and updates every now and then so why not release every > (let's say) 4 months? They would be minor releases, but they still would be > releases, which would make JSPWiki a little better for end-users so, again, > why not? There could be exceptions if needed (i.e. master broken or no code > pushed since last release), but I think it would be a good thing(tm) Hi Juan Pablo Establishing regular releases would be fantastic. It would also be good source material for public-facing marketing material, and help set a clear message that the project is moving forward. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Koelmeyer http://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz GPG Key ID: 0x238BFF87
Re: Thoughts on how to increase contributions
Yes, all of them regards, Harry Op 9 nov. 2017 21:58 schreef "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" < juanpablo.san...@gmail.com>: > Hi again^3 > > was about to begin to write this quarter's report and was thinking in ways > we could foster contributions, so I'd like to throw them here to see if any > of them looks ok-ish: > > * open commitership to everyone. Other projects, like f.ex., Apache Commons > have decided to open commitership to all Apache committers by default. > Apache Subversion also has a slightly different take on this which more or > less goes as anybody asking for committership is made a committer with > his/her first commits being reviewed/mentored. On both cases, if you're a > new committer and wish to commit something (duh) you usually ask first for > review and/or open a PR > > * use github as the primary repo. We're currently using ASF's git repo as > the canonical repo with a read-only copy at github, but infra offers from a > while back now the opposite possibility: work with github repo, which sends > the commits automatically to the ASF's repo, which gets then read-only. It > woukd treat Github as the canonical source (a copy on ASF's repo would > still be made), which allows the PRs and issues to be a bit more convenient > (there are still some things not supported due to the Github's coarse > permission structure). It would be required all committers to use Github's > 2FA [0] so once a vote in the project is taken, we should file a ticket on > the INFRA JIRA so committers could run through the Gitbox syncing [1] to > matchup ASF IDs and Github IDs. > > * Release at least every four months. Master is deliverable, and it's been > getting small fixes and updates every now and then so why not release every > (let's say) 4 months? They would be minor releases, but they still would be > releases, which would make JSPWiki a little better for end-users so, again, > why not? There could be exceptions if needed (i.e. master broken or no code > pushed since last release), but I think it would be a good thing(tm) > > does any of them seem reasonable? > > > br, > juan pablo > > [0] - > https://help.github.com/articles/providing-your-2fa-authentication-code/ > [1] - https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/ >
Thoughts on how to increase contributions
Hi again^3 was about to begin to write this quarter's report and was thinking in ways we could foster contributions, so I'd like to throw them here to see if any of them looks ok-ish: * open commitership to everyone. Other projects, like f.ex., Apache Commons have decided to open commitership to all Apache committers by default. Apache Subversion also has a slightly different take on this which more or less goes as anybody asking for committership is made a committer with his/her first commits being reviewed/mentored. On both cases, if you're a new committer and wish to commit something (duh) you usually ask first for review and/or open a PR * use github as the primary repo. We're currently using ASF's git repo as the canonical repo with a read-only copy at github, but infra offers from a while back now the opposite possibility: work with github repo, which sends the commits automatically to the ASF's repo, which gets then read-only. It woukd treat Github as the canonical source (a copy on ASF's repo would still be made), which allows the PRs and issues to be a bit more convenient (there are still some things not supported due to the Github's coarse permission structure). It would be required all committers to use Github's 2FA [0] so once a vote in the project is taken, we should file a ticket on the INFRA JIRA so committers could run through the Gitbox syncing [1] to matchup ASF IDs and Github IDs. * Release at least every four months. Master is deliverable, and it's been getting small fixes and updates every now and then so why not release every (let's say) 4 months? They would be minor releases, but they still would be releases, which would make JSPWiki a little better for end-users so, again, why not? There could be exceptions if needed (i.e. master broken or no code pushed since last release), but I think it would be a good thing(tm) does any of them seem reasonable? br, juan pablo [0] - https://help.github.com/articles/providing-your-2fa-authentication-code/ [1] - https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/