Chris, Can you give a few examples of other healthy Apache projects which you feel would be good example? Note: I'm not trying to bait the conversation, but am genuinely interested in what other successful projects do.
Thanks Jason On Monday, August 15, 2016, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > s/dev list followers/<your community>/ > > That’s (one of) the disconnect(s). It’s not *you the emboldened, powerful > PMC* > and then everyone else. > > > On 8/15/16, 11:25 AM, "Jeremy Hanna" <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Regarding high level linking, if I’m in irc or slack or hipchat or a > mailing list thread, it’s easy to reference a Jira ID and chat programs can > link to it and bots can bring up various details. I don’t think a hash id > for a mailing list is as simple or memorable. > > A feature of a mailing list thread is that it can go in different > directions easily. The burden is that it will be harder to follow in the > future if you’re trying to sort out implementation details. So for high > level discussion, the mailing list is great. When getting down to the > actual work and discussion about that focused work, that’s where a tool > like Jira comes in. Then it is reference-able in the changes.txt and other > things. > > I think the approach proposed by Jonathan is a nice way to keep dev > list followers informed but keeping ticket details focused. > > > On Aug 15, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > How is it harder to point someone to mail? > > > > Have you seen lists.apache.org? > > > > Specifically: > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > On 8/15/16, 10:08 AM, "Jeremiah D Jordan" <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one > place, and it is easy to refer someone to it in the future. > > But I agree that JIRA tickets with a bunch of design discussion > and POC’s and such in them can get pretty long and convoluted. > > > > I don’t really like the idea of moving all of that discussion to > email which makes it has harder to point someone to it. Maybe a better > idea would be to have a “design/POC” JIRA and an “implementation” JIRA. > That way we could still keep things in JIRA, but the final decision would > be kept “clean”. > > > > Though it would be nice if people would send an email to the dev > list when proposing “design” JIRA’s, as not everyone has time to follow > every JIRA ever made to see that a new design JIRA was created that they > might be interested in participating on. > > > > My 2c. > > > > -Jeremiah > > > > > >> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development > discussions > >> on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless > nature > >> helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked. > >> > >> But Cassandra was a lot smaller then, and as we've grown it has > become > >> necessary to separate out the signal (discussions of new features > and major > >> changes) from the noise of routine bug reports. > >> > >> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that > >> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements > should be > >> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, > moved to > >> Jira for implementation and review. > >> > >> I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea > proves > >> to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much > >> discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion > was, as > >> review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that > discussion on the > >> list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this. > >> > >> -- > >> Jonathan Ellis > >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > >> @spyced > > > > > > > > > > > > >
