We have the whole thread answering that question Yunze.
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:29 AM Yunze Xu wrote:
> I found I just misunderstood the "checklist" you mean. I thought it's
> more like a "summary" of a proposal. So I thought you wanted the
> reviewers to give a summary list and select which o
I found I just misunderstood the "checklist" you mean. I thought it's
more like a "summary" of a proposal. So I thought you wanted the
reviewers to give a summary list and select which of them are
understood. But why do we need a checklist? Is there any reason that
any item of the list is not selec
Hi Yunze,
Thanks for the feedback.
I re-read your comments 3 times and I can't seem to be able to understand
your key points in the matter of the checklist, so I have some
clarification questions:
1. You said you reviewed PIP-261, remembered the checklist proposal, but
couldn't add it. Can you e
I cannot agree more with Dave's comments.
I just reviewed PIP-261 and PIP-264 yesterday. When I gave +1 to
PIP-261, I recalled this thread so I'm wondering if I can add a
checklist. Eventually, I did not do that. IMO, it's the author's
responsibility to give a checklist for authors to choose for h
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 8:58 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> You asked. Here it is.
>
> 1. You brushed aside Enrico’s concerns with that comment. It was not
> subtle.
>
I don't understand. Enrico wrote:
"+1 to writing a clear and very brief summary of the consideration you hBe
to take before casting your
I agree with the motivation, and we should pay more attention to the
quality of the proposals.
When I write or review a proposal, I usually assume the readers are
engineers with enough Pulsar knowledge background and don't provide
enough context. It makes the proposal hard to understand for beginn
> 2. I think the project should pay more attention to Rajan’s concerns
about new contributors being either ignored or told they need a PIP for
what seems to them a trivial change. We lose contributors. We need to
handle that more gently by helping them figure how to better make their PR.
Do we hav
You asked. Here it is.
1. You brushed aside Enrico’s concerns with that comment. It was not subtle.
2. I think the project should pay more attention to Rajan’s concerns about new
contributors being either ignored or told they need a PIP for what seems to
them a trivial change. We lose contribut
I understand that Dave, and hence I only started a discussion.
What do you think of last reply I made there?
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 18, 2023, at 5:14 AM, Asaf Mesika wrote:
> >
> > The problem I'm trying to solve is: lack of ab
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 18, 2023, at 5:14 AM, Asaf Mesika wrote:
>
> The problem I'm trying to solve is: lack of ability to understand PIPs.
> PIPs I had the chance of reading lack:
> * Background information: It should contain all background information
> necessary to understand the pr
Ping, in case it was lost in the barrage of mails
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 3:54 PM Asaf Mesika wrote:
> Is it ok if we use the following vote template? Per comments above, it
> will be optional, yet recommended.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> [v] PIP has all sections detailed in the PIP template (Backgroun
Is it ok if we use the following vote template? Per comments above, it will
be optional, yet recommended.
+1 (binding)
[v] PIP has all sections detailed in the PIP template (Background,
motivation, etc.)
[v] A person having basic Pulsar user knowledge, can read the PIP and fully
understand it
[v]
> you are ok with having a summary template, but have it non-required?
Yes to me.
In addition, I think the root cause of the problems you met is that
some PIPs have low quality. They are not clear and friendly to others.
A good proposal should not require reviewers to have deep knowledge of
a sp
The problem I'm trying to solve is: lack of ability to understand PIPs.
PIPs I had the chance of reading lack:
* Background information: It should contain all background information
necessary to understand the problem and the solution
* Clarity: It should be written in a coherent and easy to unders
Basically I think describing how much work the reviewer did to give
his +1 is good. Just like the vote for a release, each +1 follows with
the verifications he did, e.g. here [1] is a vote for Pulsar 2.11.1
candidate 1:
> • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 17.0)
> • Ran binary pa
I don't think it will bring more burden on reviewers.
It will only provide a checklist for reviewers before
you vote +1 or -1. It could be done in 1 minute if you
did a great proposal review. Of course, if you are
missing some aspects that should be reviewed,
This will make the reviewer spend more
Hi, Asaf
This is a great suggestion. I believe one significant advantage is that
it can help newcomers better understand the voting process and how
decisions are made.
The checklist can serve as a reference framework,
assisting new members in becoming familiar with the project's voting
requirements
Asaf,
I understand your intent.
I think that when anyone casts a +1, especially with '(binding)' they know
well what they are doing.
It is not an 'I like it', but it is an important assumption of
responsibility.
This applies to all the VOTEs.
Requiring this checklist may be good in order to help
Would love additional feedback on this suggestion.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:19 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> It looks like we can try to add a new section to
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md
> like "Review the proposal" and it is not only for PMCs, all the reviewer
It looks like we can try to add a new section to
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md
like "Review the proposal" and it is not only for PMCs, all the reviewers
can follow the checklist
to cast a solemn vote.
And I totally support the motivation of this discussion.
Re
Hi,
When you read last year's PIPs, many lack background information, hard to
read and understand even if you know pulsar in and out.
First step to fix was to change the PIP is structured:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19832
In my opinion, when someone votes "+1" and it's binding, they b
21 matches
Mail list logo
