> 1) Facebook submitted the code grant over a year after > the code was checked into svn. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. The documents submitted by Facebook were lost *twice* by Apache, as well as several of the ICLAs submitted by non-Facebook contributors.
> It was only after arm-twisting by both me and Upayavira that Todd > Lipcon was offered commit in order to deal with the issues and cut a > release. Todd specifically told us that he did not care about getting commit access. > Todd seems to have lost interest in further work here. This is because Todd changed jobs, and his new employer does not use Thrift. > 2) When Upayavira or I or anyone else ask questions about > the project and its future here, Facebook devs always > speak on behalf of the devs instead of encouraging input > from others. Well, I can just speak for myself, but I respond to these emails because I'm trying to be helpful. It sounds like it would be more helpful for me to encourage others to respond instead, so I'll be doing this from now on. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > 3) Instant releases are counter to Apache's goals for code > management and distribution policies. As dev tools they > are tolerable, but when end-users are told to use those > instead of true releases they are not. I'm not sure if I've never told an end-user to use an instant release instead of a true release. If I have, I'm pretty sure it was before 0.2 was released. The instant releases are just there so people who want to use trunk but not install autoconf and friends can do so. No one has ever told me that maintaining this page is harming Thrift, but I'd be more than happy to shut it down if that is the case. > While I haven't seen commits being vetoed, I also haven't seen commits > get discussed post-commit, which means the review is happening prior > to commit instead of post commit. That should be addressed by the > community When we started the project, we were told that we were free to choose between a "review-then-commit" or "commit-then-review" model, and we (which includes non-Facebook contributors) chose the former. If this is no longer considered good practice, I suppose we could switch models. --David On 08/12/2010 01:26 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: David Reiss <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 4:09:58 PM >> Subject: Re: time for a reboot? >> >> Can you be more specific about what you consider >> "downward pressure"? > > 1) Facebook submitted the code grant over a year after > the code was checked into svn. As it turns out Facebook > had done a poor job of managing the intellectual assets > therein, and did little to help me chase down people with > interests in the codebase. When suggestions were made > by me as to what tasks needed to be carried out by the > current committers to deal with the situation, nothing > was done. It was only after arm-twisting by both me > and Upayavira that Todd Lipcon was offered commit in > order to deal with the issues and cut a release. Nobody > has been considered for commit by this project since > then, and Todd seems to have lost interest in further > work here. > > The community had no idea why it took so long for thrift > to cut a release, but the fact is that 90% of the delay > was caused by Facebook. Apache simply had to clean up > the mess, despite being blamed for the delay by others. > > 2) When Upayavira or I or anyone else ask questions about > the project and its future here, Facebook devs always > speak on behalf of the devs instead of encouraging input > from others. The answers we get amount to the bare minimum > required not to shut the project down, and it is a shame > that other devs are not encouraged to speak for themselves > or their own interests in the project. > > 3) Instant releases are counter to Apache's goals for code > management and distribution policies. As dev tools they > are tolerable, but when end-users are told to use those > instead of true releases they are not. > > 4) Running trunk in production is poor practice and puts > too much pressure on other committers to maintain stability > in trunk. While I haven't seen commits being vetoed, > I also haven't seen commits get discussed post-commit, > which means the review is happening prior to commit instead > of post commit. That should be addressed by the community > by doing more experimentation in trunk, and once the project > hits 1.0 it should cut a stable branch and backport trunk > work to it. For examples on best practice for managing > subversion trees have a look at the httpd or subversion > project. > > I could go on, but that should be a sufficient start. > >> >> On 08/12/2010 12:16 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> It has come to my attention that this project has >>> made no effort to maintain its list of PPMC members. >>> A best-effort was made by Gavin McDonald to construct >>> that list from the subscriber base to thrift-private@ >>> which may be found here: >>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/thrift >>> >>> This project remains at a crossroads, and my personal >>> graduation vote based on the current trajectory would >>> not be favorable. >>> >>> Apache projects are not cathedrals, they are bazaars. >>> The committers on the project are facilitators, not >>> gatekeepers. Every person who has ever submitted a patch >>> to either jira or this mailing list should be encouraged by >>> the existing devs to become a committer on this project, >>> but that never happens here. Instead people fork, >>> like what happened with c-thrift. That is not goodness >>> from an Apache standpoint; it would be far better to >>> create a sandbox in the subversion tree for experimentation >>> by community members. >>> >>> Trunk should be treated as Commit-then-Review. It is >>> a-ok to break it, and anyone running trunk in production >>> better be prepared to deal with the fallout of that >>> decision. >>> >>> Look, cassandra came into Apache a year or so after >>> thrift did, and they have already graduated. Part of >>> the reason why they have been successful where thrift >>> has not is because the Facebook devs there were not >>> allowed to place downward pressure on the community >>> the way they have here. The sooner this community >>> starts routing around them, the more likely this >>> project has a chance of real success at Apache. >>> >>> I have asked for special permission from my colleagues >>> in the Incubator to experiment with processes designed >>> to get out of your way in as far as it is possible, >>> so there can be no excuses as to why Thrift is not >>> succeeding except for the fact that the devs have >>> not done an adequate job of growing the community. >>> I expect that permission to be granted very soon, >>> and would like those committers on this project >>> who still care about it to take advantage of this >>> special opportunity before it's too late. So far >>> Bryan is the only person I would trust to make an >>> IPMC member or serve as Chair for this project >>> should it pursue graduation, but if others start >>> showing more active interest I am more than happy >>> to consider them. >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
