Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Eric Stevens]

There are a few strengths of discussion on the ticketing system over
mailing lists.  Mailing lists were fundamentally designed in the 1970's and
early 1980's, and the state of the art from a user experience perspective
has barely advanced since then.

* Mailing lists tend to end up with fragmented threads for large
discussions, subject changes, conversation restarts, topic forks, and
simple etiquette errors - all of which can make it very difficult to locate
the entire discussion related to a feature.   There is no single source
that an interested party can study thoroughly to understand the entire
conversation, rather it's more of a scavenger hunt with no way to be
certain you've covered all the territory.  8844 for example would have
ended up being numerous parallel threads as people forked the conversation
to have side discussions or offer alternatives, there's no way such a
ticket would ever have simply been a single massive email thread with no
forks.

* Mailing lists don't allow for selective subscription.  If I find a ticket
interesting, I can watch the ticket and follow along. Conversely and more
importantly if I find it uninteresting I don't have to wade through that
discussion as it progresses.  If I think I want to follow all tickets, that
should be possible too.  Likewise if I want to watch tickets that involve
certain components, certain milestones, certain labels, or even certain
contributors, I can create a subscription for such, and get emails
accordingly.  I can also subscribe to RSS feeds and add them to my news
reader if I prefer that approach better.  A tremendous amount of control is
given to the user over what they want to see, and how they want to see it.

* The concern that Chris voiced about having to open a web browser to
participate is actually not true unless Apache's Jira install is not well
configured.  If you reply to an email notification from Jira it should
appear as a comment on the ticket.  It shouldn't exclude anyone (even those
who want to participate but somehow can't be motivated to create an account
in the ticketing system, but who _could_ be bothered to figure out the
arcane mailing list subscription incantation).

* Permalinking conversations is an important capability.  It's possible
with a mailing list, but it's nontrivial, when you want to create that
permalink, you must first locate the discussion in the nonprimary interface
(the online archives), which involves a lot more effort.  Historically
we've also seen existing "permalinks" become invalidated with mailing list
archive software is switched or upgraded.  This leads to the next point:

* One of the simple but hugely valuable features of Jira is the short
memorable ticket numbers.  Several people in this thread have mentioned
8844.  Those who care about that conversation know that ID by heart.  And
in casual conversation if you want to bring someone's attention to an
issue, you can mention it by ID without having to try to remember what the
original thread subject was so the other participant can also hopefully
remember and maybe locate it later.  Write the number down on a napkin and
you _will_ find the issue, and know it's the right one, and not some
similar but unrelated conversation.

* Ticketing systems can maintain a summarized version of the conversation
in the ticket's description as a shortcut for those who want to know the
current state without having to read potentially months of back history to
catch up (the event log model).  Event logs are a great way to capture
changing state, but they're horridly inefficient if your only option is to
start from 0 and replay the entire log, particularly when a lot of the
contributors are as long winded as I am.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> ... but it's important to note that if we take this approach, we need to be
> careful not to just summarize the conclusion of the discussion, but also
> approaches that were examined and found to be unviable, and why.  Otherwise
> people looking at the ticket will have to cross reference back to a much
> harder-to-follow discussion on the list archives.
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Josh McKenzie 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 2: 8844 would have been a great candidate for being discussed on the
> >> mailing list rather than on JIRA. While I made it a point to front-load
> >> design, we still ran into some unforeseen consequences from the design
> >> that
> >> might have been prevented by more wide-spread discussion. In my opinion,
> >> it
> >> would have made sense to have the initial discussion(s) take place on
> the
> >> mailing list until a design had settled out, worked that design and the
> >> day-to-day back and forth on JIRA, then bringing it back to the mailing
> >> list when we ran into the problems with the design.
> >>
> >
> > This is a good example of what I had in 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jonathan Ellis]

... but it's important to note that if we take this approach, we need to be
careful not to just summarize the conclusion of the discussion, but also
approaches that were examined and found to be unviable, and why.  Otherwise
people looking at the ticket will have to cross reference back to a much
harder-to-follow discussion on the list archives.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Josh McKenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> 2: 8844 would have been a great candidate for being discussed on the
>> mailing list rather than on JIRA. While I made it a point to front-load
>> design, we still ran into some unforeseen consequences from the design
>> that
>> might have been prevented by more wide-spread discussion. In my opinion,
>> it
>> would have made sense to have the initial discussion(s) take place on the
>> mailing list until a design had settled out, worked that design and the
>> day-to-day back and forth on JIRA, then bringing it back to the mailing
>> list when we ran into the problems with the design.
>>
>
> This is a good example of what I had in mind here.
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>



-- 
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jonathan Ellis]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:

> 2: 8844 would have been a great candidate for being discussed on the
> mailing list rather than on JIRA. While I made it a point to front-load
> design, we still ran into some unforeseen consequences from the design that
> might have been prevented by more wide-spread discussion. In my opinion, it
> would have made sense to have the initial discussion(s) take place on the
> mailing list until a design had settled out, worked that design and the
> day-to-day back and forth on JIRA, then bringing it back to the mailing
> list when we ran into the problems with the design.
>

This is a good example of what I had in mind here.

-- 
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Josh McKenzie]

2 thoughts:

1: I'd hate to see our daily test email getting lost in a flood of jira
ticket opening / commenting on trivial day-to-day work. I already have
email filters for those from the JIRA feed and, while I could also set up
filters on this list, that's an extra burden to participation for new
contributors in my opinion and doesn't add any value over the current
project workflow.

2: 8844 would have been a great candidate for being discussed on the
mailing list rather than on JIRA. While I made it a point to front-load
design, we still ran into some unforeseen consequences from the design that
might have been prevented by more wide-spread discussion. In my opinion, it
would have made sense to have the initial discussion(s) take place on the
mailing list until a design had settled out, worked that design and the
day-to-day back and forth on JIRA, then bringing it back to the mailing
list when we ran into the problems with the design.

I'm personally not in favor of having all discussion for tickets hit the
dev mailing list as we essentially already have a list for that, however I
do believe we should make better use of our dev list.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Nate McCall  wrote:

> > 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.
> >
>
> So the goal is to mitigate some of the (in most cases necessary) noise that
> bloated CASSANDRA-8844? (There are others, but this is a good example.)
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> In the case of CASSANDRA-8844, if Tupshin posted his summary here first,
> would this have streamlined some of the discussion? Again, if Josh had
> circled back around on the ML with some of his findings during
> implementation as opposed to Jira, would this be more clear to understand
> the ongoing development? (I'm not sure myself, just raising these for
> thinking about).
>
> There are some good points made on the concerns of traffic and
> fragmentation, so to refocus this discussion, we seem to have some general
> agreement on:
> 1. large contributions/design ideas would make sense to 'announce' on the
> ML (this will inherently inspire some level of discussion)
> 2. linking back to relevant ML announcements from Jira is a good practice
>
> I feel like starting here would be a good first step towards higher
> engagement on the ML w/o blowing up the traffic and potentially doing a bit
> of streamlining on our biggest issues.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Nate
>

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Nate McCall]

> 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.
>

So the goal is to mitigate some of the (in most cases necessary) noise that
bloated CASSANDRA-8844? (There are others, but this is a good example.)


> 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.
>

In the case of CASSANDRA-8844, if Tupshin posted his summary here first,
would this have streamlined some of the discussion? Again, if Josh had
circled back around on the ML with some of his findings during
implementation as opposed to Jira, would this be more clear to understand
the ongoing development? (I'm not sure myself, just raising these for
thinking about).

There are some good points made on the concerns of traffic and
fragmentation, so to refocus this discussion, we seem to have some general
agreement on:
1. large contributions/design ideas would make sense to 'announce' on the
ML (this will inherently inspire some level of discussion)
2. linking back to relevant ML announcements from Jira is a good practice

I feel like starting here would be a good first step towards higher
engagement on the ML w/o blowing up the traffic and potentially doing a bit
of streamlining on our biggest issues.

Thoughts?

-Nate

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Michael Kjellman]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Brandon Williams 
> wrote:

So will I, if that happens, which has never happened in the last ~7 years.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
>
wrote:


On 8/15/16, 2:15 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" 
> wrote:

Julian Hyde, who made the proposal, is active in the Apache Incubator ...
  I propose that when a JIRA is created, we send an email to both dev@
and
  issues@. This will be an extra 40 emails per month on the dev list.
I am
  really cautious about increasing the number of messages on the dev
list,
  because I think high-volume lists discourage part-time contributors,
but I
  think this change is worthwhile. It will make people aware of
  conversations that are happening and if it helps to channel
conversations
  onto JIRA cases it could possibly even REDUCE the volume on the dev
list.


That's a useful example. However, that's a project with 30-40 issues per
month (1300 over its lifetime) - Cassandra is sitting at 244 in the past 30
days, 12000 over its lifetime.

I think a lot of us part-time contributors appreciate efforts to increase
visibility and certainly welcome growing the project by making it easier to
recruit and retain more contributors, but is the noise of 10 more new email
threads per day going to get into the "high volume lists discourage
part-time contributors" range Julian discussed?

I'm a part time contributor. If this list gets ~10 threads per day with
2-3 replies each, I'm going to have to start filtering it out of necessity
(because I can't keep up with that volume).

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Brandon Williams]

So will I, if that happens, which has never happened in the last ~7 years.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
wrote:

>
> On 8/15/16, 2:15 PM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:
>
> > Julian Hyde, who made the proposal, is active in the Apache Incubator …
> >I propose that when a JIRA is created, we send an email to both dev@
> and
> >issues@. This will be an extra 40 emails per month on the dev list.
> I am
> >really cautious about increasing the number of messages on the dev
> list,
> >because I think high-volume lists discourage part-time contributors,
> but I
> >think this change is worthwhile. It will make people aware of
> >conversations that are happening and if it helps to channel
> conversations
> >onto JIRA cases it could possibly even REDUCE the volume on the dev
> list.
> >
>
> That’s a useful example. However, that’s a project with 30-40 issues per
> month (1300 over its lifetime) – Cassandra is sitting at 244 in the past 30
> days, 12000 over its lifetime.
>
> I think a lot of us part-time contributors appreciate efforts to increase
> visibility and certainly welcome growing the project by making it easier to
> recruit and retain more contributors, but is the noise of 10 more new email
> threads per day going to get into the “high volume lists discourage
> part-time contributors” range Julian discussed?
>
> I’m a part time contributor. If this list gets ~10 threads per day with
> 2-3 replies each, I’m going to have to start filtering it out of necessity
> (because I can’t keep up with that volume).
>
>
>
>

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeff Jirsa]

On 8/15/16, 2:15 PM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:

> Julian Hyde, who made the proposal, is active in the Apache Incubator … 
>I propose that when a JIRA is created, we send an email to both dev@ and
>issues@. This will be an extra 40 emails per month on the dev list. I am
>really cautious about increasing the number of messages on the dev list,
>because I think high-volume lists discourage part-time contributors, but I
>think this change is worthwhile. It will make people aware of
>conversations that are happening and if it helps to channel conversations
>onto JIRA cases it could possibly even REDUCE the volume on the dev list.
>

That’s a useful example. However, that’s a project with 30-40 issues per month 
(1300 over its lifetime) – Cassandra is sitting at 244 in the past 30 days, 
12000 over its lifetime.

I think a lot of us part-time contributors appreciate efforts to increase 
visibility and certainly welcome growing the project by making it easier to 
recruit and retain more contributors, but is the noise of 10 more new email 
threads per day going to get into the “high volume lists discourage part-time 
contributors” range Julian discussed? 

I’m a part time contributor. If this list gets ~10 threads per day with 2-3 
replies each, I’m going to have to start filtering it out of necessity (because 
I can’t keep up with that volume). 





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Marvin Humphrey]

On 2016-08-15 11:34 (-0700), Jason Brown  wrote: 

> 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.

The Apache Calcite project, which has had issues@ broken out as a separate
list, chose to start sending notifications on JIRA issue *creation* (only!) to
the dev list last March.

Julian Hyde, who made the proposal, is active in the Apache Incubator and has
served as Mentor for several incubating projects, so he's dealt with this
issue several times.

https://s.apache.org/w9OM

I propose that when a JIRA is created, we send an email to both dev@ and
issues@. This will be an extra 40 emails per month on the dev list. I am
really cautious about increasing the number of messages on the dev list,
because I think high-volume lists discourage part-time contributors, but I
think this change is worthwhile. It will make people aware of
conversations that are happening and if it helps to channel conversations
onto JIRA cases it could possibly even REDUCE the volume on the dev list.

You may also be interested in the advice that new podlings receive when they
hit the Incubator:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MailingListOptions

Marvin Humphrey

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Robert Stupp]

I am +1 on separating JIRA changes into a new issues@ ML and to have mail to 
start a design discussion in JIRA on the dev@ ML.

FWIW, I’m coding for many many years and have seen a lot of attempts to 
organise discussions within businesses and in public. Most of these discussions 
were made on mailing lists, which was *the tool* to work with these days. But 
emails were never and still are not a definitely reliable medium - emails 
sometimes get lost or massively delayed on the transport - which is the nature 
of emails - emails are not instant messaging nor necessarily arrive in order. 
But having an common, consistent and ordered view to a discussion is important 
IMO. JIRA provides this view as a tool made to track issues. Mean - JIRAs are 
dynamic, have a state and such. Emails don’t. You can see whether an issue is 
e.g. closed - but you can’t instantly see whether an email discussion is 
“closed”.
When I started to contribute to Apache Cassandra, I really liked the use of 
JIRA because it made it much easier to get into tickets/topics that are 
interesting and are still active (why should a newbie read a whole discussion 
about something that’s already done or obsolete to find something interesting?).
Nowadays, I look at the tickets updated in commits@ but go to JIRA to see the 
whole picture. Additionally, I’ve got a dashboard setup for my needs - but 
that’s probably only advantageous for frequent contributors or committers.
IMO, JIRA is the medium with the best signal-noise-ratio - you can filter/watch 
individual JIRAs. But for mailing lists it’s always all or nothing.

—
Robert Stupp
@snazy

> On 16 Aug 2016, at 06:19, Ken Hancock  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Dave Lester  wrote:
> 
>> Interesting, thanks for pointing out this distinction.
>> 
>> Perhaps breaking out issues from the commits list would help make it
>> easier for folks to subscribe in the future? At least within the Apache
>> Mesos and Apache Aurora projects, we’ve seen more people subscribe to
>> issues@ lists than commits@ lists.
>> 
> 
> I was unaware of the commits mailing list and subscribed, but created
> filters to delete comments/updates and only keep Created/Resolved. Is that
> essentially what the issues@ list is for Mesos?

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Ken Hancock]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Dave Lester  wrote:

> Interesting, thanks for pointing out this distinction.
>
> Perhaps breaking out issues from the commits list would help make it
> easier for folks to subscribe in the future? At least within the Apache
> Mesos and Apache Aurora projects, we’ve seen more people subscribe to
> issues@ lists than commits@ lists.
>

I was unaware of the commits mailing list and subscribed, but created
filters to delete comments/updates and only keep Created/Resolved. Is that
essentially what the issues@ list is for Mesos?

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Dave Lester]

Interesting, thanks for pointing out this distinction.

Perhaps breaking out issues from the commits list would help make it easier for 
folks to subscribe in the future? At least within the Apache Mesos and Apache 
Aurora projects, we’ve seen more people subscribe to issues@ lists than 
commits@ lists.

FWIW, the Cassandra commits@ list does have a heathy following already — a 
subscriber number greater than those that contributed code to Apache Cassandra. 
For those with Apache ids, mailing list subscriber metrics are browsable using 
the Reporter tool: https://reporter.apache.org/ 

Dave

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> By this definition the Cassandra project is already compliant? There's a
> commits@ mailing list that behaves just as you describe.
> 
> I'd personally like to see some reform with how these things work, but
> mostly because commits@ is rarely going to be subscribed to by anybody who
> isn't working full time on the project, as it's painfully noisy. I would
> hate for dev@ to become similarly noisy though.
> 
> On Monday, 15 August 2016, Dave Lester  > wrote:
> 
>> For all Apache projects, mailing lists are the source of truth. See: "If
>> it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen."
>> https://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html#is-there-a- 
>> 
>> code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects > 
>> newbiefaq.html#is-there-a-code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects>
>> 
>> In response to Jason’s question, here are two things I’ve seen work well
>> in the Apache Mesos community:
>> 
>> 1. I’d suggest setting up an iss...@cassandra.apache.org 
>>  
>> mailing list which posts all changes to JIRA tickets (comments, issue
>> reassignments, status changes). This could be subscribed to like any other
>> mailing list, and while this list would be high volume it increases
>> transparency of what’s happening across the project.
>> 
>> For Apache Mesos, we have a issues@mesos list:
>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org 
>>  <
>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org 
>> > for this
>> purpose. It can be hugely valuable for keeping tabs on what’s happening in
>> the project. If there’s interest in creating this for Cassandra, here’s a
>> link to the original INFRA ticket as a reference:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971 
>>  <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971 
>> >
>> 
>> 2. Apache Mesos has formalized process of design documents / feature
>> development, to encourage community discussion prior to being committed —
>> this discussion takes place on the mailing list and often has less to do
>> with the merits of a particular patch as much as it does on an overall
>> design, its relationship to dependencies, its usage, or larger issues about
>> the direction of a feature. These discussions belong on the mailing list.
>> 
>> To keep these discussions / design documents connected to JIRA we attach
>> links to JIRA issues. For example: https://cwiki.apache.org/ 
>> 
>> confluence/display/MESOS/Design+docs+--+Shared+Links <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MESOS/
>> Design+docs+--+Shared+Links>. The design doc approach is more of a
>> formalization of what Jonathan originally proposed.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Jason Brown > > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 > > wrote:
>>> 
 s/dev list followers//
 
 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" > 
 > 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 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

By this definition the Cassandra project is already compliant? There's a
commits@ mailing list that behaves just as you describe.

I'd personally like to see some reform with how these things work, but
mostly because commits@ is rarely going to be subscribed to by anybody who
isn't working full time on the project, as it's painfully noisy. I would
hate for dev@ to become similarly noisy though.

On Monday, 15 August 2016, Dave Lester  wrote:

> For all Apache projects, mailing lists are the source of truth. See: "If
> it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen."
> https://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html#is-there-a-
> code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects  newbiefaq.html#is-there-a-code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects>
>
> In response to Jason’s question, here are two things I’ve seen work well
> in the Apache Mesos community:
>
> 1. I’d suggest setting up an iss...@cassandra.apache.org 
> mailing list which posts all changes to JIRA tickets (comments, issue
> reassignments, status changes). This could be subscribed to like any other
> mailing list, and while this list would be high volume it increases
> transparency of what’s happening across the project.
>
> For Apache Mesos, we have a issues@mesos list:
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org <
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org> for this
> purpose. It can be hugely valuable for keeping tabs on what’s happening in
> the project. If there’s interest in creating this for Cassandra, here’s a
> link to the original INFRA ticket as a reference:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971>
>
> 2. Apache Mesos has formalized process of design documents / feature
> development, to encourage community discussion prior to being committed —
> this discussion takes place on the mailing list and often has less to do
> with the merits of a particular patch as much as it does on an overall
> design, its relationship to dependencies, its usage, or larger issues about
> the direction of a feature. These discussions belong on the mailing list.
>
> To keep these discussions / design documents connected to JIRA we attach
> links to JIRA issues. For example: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/MESOS/Design+docs+--+Shared+Links <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MESOS/
> Design+docs+--+Shared+Links>. The design doc approach is more of a
> formalization of what Jonathan originally proposed.
>
> Dave
>
> > On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Jason Brown  > wrote:
> >
> > 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  > wrote:
> >
> >> s/dev list followers//
> >>
> >> 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"  
> >> > 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  
> >> > 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"  
> >> > 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.
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

> 1. I’d suggest setting up an iss...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list which 
> posts all changes to JIRA tickets (comments, issue reassignments, status 
> changes). This could be subscribed to like any other mailing list, and while 
> this list would be high volume it increases transparency of what’s happening 
> across the project.

For anyone who wants to follow that stream for Apache Cassandra we have 
commits@ setup for this.  
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@cassandra.apache.org 


> On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Dave Lester  wrote:
> 
> For all Apache projects, mailing lists are the source of truth. See: "If it 
> didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen." 
> https://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html#is-there-a-code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects
>  
> 
> 
> In response to Jason’s question, here are two things I’ve seen work well in 
> the Apache Mesos community:
> 
> 1. I’d suggest setting up an iss...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list which 
> posts all changes to JIRA tickets (comments, issue reassignments, status 
> changes). This could be subscribed to like any other mailing list, and while 
> this list would be high volume it increases transparency of what’s happening 
> across the project.
> 
> For Apache Mesos, we have a issues@mesos list: 
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org 
>  for this 
> purpose. It can be hugely valuable for keeping tabs on what’s happening in 
> the project. If there’s interest in creating this for Cassandra, here’s a 
> link to the original INFRA ticket as a reference: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971 
> 
> 
> 2. Apache Mesos has formalized process of design documents / feature 
> development, to encourage community discussion prior to being committed — 
> this discussion takes place on the mailing list and often has less to do with 
> the merits of a particular patch as much as it does on an overall design, its 
> relationship to dependencies, its usage, or larger issues about the direction 
> of a feature. These discussions belong on the mailing list.
> 
> To keep these discussions / design documents connected to JIRA we attach 
> links to JIRA issues. For example: 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MESOS/Design+docs+--+Shared+Links 
> .
>  The design doc approach is more of a formalization of what Jonathan 
> originally proposed.
> 
> Dave
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Jason Brown  wrote:
>> 
>> 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  wrote:
>> 
>>> s/dev list followers//
>>> 
>>> 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" >> > 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 >> > 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" >> > 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 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Michael Shuler]

On 08/15/2016 01:12 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> How is it harder to point someone to mail?

Mailing lists can be simple to join and converse. Like some other folks,
I'm on a large number of lists and get massive amounts of mail.
Extremely busy mailing lists need user-level care for them to be
functional for the flow of conversation and proper thread archiving.

> Have you seen lists.apache.org?
> 
> Specifically:
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@cassandra.apache.org

Since signal vs noise is part of the conversation here, I just wish to
point out my observation that this particular thread has some pretty
severe readability issues, and this thread is tiny in comparison to the
multi-100's of messages on some list threads. Here's this thread in the
archive:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a6e6c9303779cb095ab14c3b4d66436a3771f076e8dbd9970eca46fe@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E

Chris, it appears that your mail client, Microsoft-MacOutlook, does some
very odd indentation/munging on reply text, so Pony Mail cannot properly
collapse the text you are replying to. This also propagates to some of
the other user's replies to your messages. The result is a thread
archive that contains a large amount of "wall of text" appearance,
making it difficult to pick out and follow the actual conversation
taking place. Please, fix your mail client.

-- 
Kind regards,
Michael

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Dave Lester]

For all Apache projects, mailing lists are the source of truth. See: "If it 
didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen." 
https://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html#is-there-a-code-of-conduct-for-apache-projects
 


In response to Jason’s question, here are two things I’ve seen work well in the 
Apache Mesos community:

1. I’d suggest setting up an iss...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list which 
posts all changes to JIRA tickets (comments, issue reassignments, status 
changes). This could be subscribed to like any other mailing list, and while 
this list would be high volume it increases transparency of what’s happening 
across the project.

For Apache Mesos, we have a issues@mesos list: 
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@mesos.apache.org 
 for this purpose. 
It can be hugely valuable for keeping tabs on what’s happening in the project. 
If there’s interest in creating this for Cassandra, here’s a link to the 
original INFRA ticket as a reference: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7971 


2. Apache Mesos has formalized process of design documents / feature 
development, to encourage community discussion prior to being committed — this 
discussion takes place on the mailing list and often has less to do with the 
merits of a particular patch as much as it does on an overall design, its 
relationship to dependencies, its usage, or larger issues about the direction 
of a feature. These discussions belong on the mailing list.

To keep these discussions / design documents connected to JIRA we attach links 
to JIRA issues. For example: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MESOS/Design+docs+--+Shared+Links 
.
 The design doc approach is more of a formalization of what Jonathan originally 
proposed.

Dave

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Jason Brown  wrote:
> 
> 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  wrote:
> 
>> s/dev list followers//
>> 
>> 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" > > 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 > > 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" > > 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 > > wrote:

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeff Jirsa]

+1 (nonbinding) to at least announcing major architectural improvements on dev 
email. 

I don’t know that it’s going to help encourage more contributors like Chris 
suggests, but it seems like at worst it won’t hurt, and certainly should help 
make people aware of Jiras that would otherwise slip by unnoticed. 
 

On 8/15/16, 7:22 AM, "Jonathan Ellis"  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, 
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.datastax.com=DQIBaQ=08AGY6txKsvMOP6lYkHQpPMRA1U6kqhAwGa8-0QCg3M=yfYEBHVkX6l0zImlOIBID0gmhluYPD5Jje-3CtaT3ow=sw6DH_A1qpHeVAQNIUqFE0MwHlAsEAfFgqpciRBV2JY=bo665yjr_ozrH_nDYzW1afy_N8N3JJ_TTPaB2rkghYM=
> 
>@spyced


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jason Brown]

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  wrote:

> s/dev list followers//
>
> 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"  > 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  > 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"  > 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  > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeremy Hanna]

I’m not a committer or PMC member.  I’m a dev list follower and contributor.  
I’ve been working with different apache projects for years.  I often don’t 
follow or filter the asf lists because I’m only interested in individual 
tickets.  I often don’t care how the decision was made, though that may be 
important for auditing purposes for a project.  I care that it’s been 
implemented and having an easy way to link to it if I want to give others an 
easy way to watch or vote for the feature.  Also I’ve found the lists as a pain 
because if I want to contribute something to a discussion I have to join the 
list.  I often don’t want to join a list about project X.  I just care insofar 
as it relates to what I want.  So I have my universal Jira account and I can 
watch or vote for or comment on tickets.  Within the Apache ecosystem, that’s 
much simpler than having to follow a list per project.

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> 
> s/dev list followers//
> 
> 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"  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  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"  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  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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

s/dev list followers//

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"  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  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"  
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  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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeremy Hanna]

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  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"  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  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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[J. D. Jordan]

From my interactions with people who are not actively involved I think it is 
much easier for them to follow a JIRA link and then start being involved in the 
discussion than it is to get a link to the mail archive and then figure out how 
to get in on the discussion.

People who aren't used to mailing lists don't "get them". Most people 
understand getting an account on a website and posting there, as it's like 
Facebook but for Software discussions.

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Chris Mattmann  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"  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  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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

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"  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  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

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Michael Kjellman]

I get 2500+ emails a day and I don't filter dev as I like to stay engaged. If 
this list becomes too noisy everyone will just filter it into a black hole. Sad.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Russell Bradberry 
> wrote:

So then what was the point of Ellis’s proposal, and this discussion, if there 
was never a choice in the matter in the first place?


On 8/15/16, 2:03 PM, "Chris Mattmann" 
> wrote:

   I’m sorry but you are massively confused if you believe that the ASF mailing 
lists
   aren’t the source of truth. They are. That’s not optional. If you are an ASF 
project,
   mailing lists are the source of truth. Period.

   On 8/15/16, 11:01 AM, "Michael Kjellman" 
> wrote:

   I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very findable 
for new people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able to find 
the same thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in the 
project in the first place.

   Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific issues 
to the attention of the broader community. It should never be the source of 
truth.

   best,
   kjellman

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> 
wrote:

   Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already*
   on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage 
the
   *entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
   PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. 
The mailing
   list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. 
They *are*
   the lifeblood of the Apache project.



   On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" 
> wrote:

  I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

  On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita 
> 
wrote:

   As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
   to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

   I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
   interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
   written to the comment or text.
   If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
   that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
   isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

   So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


   On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
>
   wrote:
   This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
   needs to be
   inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
   to that.
   I hope to see more inclusivity here.



   On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> 
wrote:

  Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
   it wouldn’t be an issue.

  The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
   summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

  No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
   and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

  This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
   and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
  dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
   don’t care about.

  We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

  --
  AY

  On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann 
(mattm...@apache.org)
   wrote:

  Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
   fine, but realize,
  there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
   watching
  the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
   so you are basically
  forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
   JIRA.





  On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
>
   wrote:

  I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
   on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

I don’t want to put words into Jonathan’s mouth, but my guess is that he’s 
trying
to strike a balance between Apache Cassandra’s almost exclusive use of JIRA and
like nil conversation on the dev@ list, with an incremental way to *get there* 
in terms of moving the project to actually use the dev list for discussion.

This isn’t an effort to kill JIRA. JIRA is fine as a *tool*. But, it is by no 
means the
ground truth for the project. The ground truth is, always has been, and will 
continue in the future to be, the mailing list. Project decisions are made on 
the mailing list.

Normally this is an easy concept for new projects to grok as they come through
the Incubator, and as they become Apache projects. Sometimes, projects need
to be instructed that this is the case. We have seen it many times before. 
However,
there seems to be a fundamental disconnect here in Apache Cassandra between
the project being mentored in the Apache way, versus “the way you have been
doing it for so long”. Just because that’s the way it’s been going on for so 
long, 
doesn’t mean it’s the correct way here at the ASF.



On 8/15/16, 11:05 AM, "Russell Bradberry"  wrote:

So then what was the point of Ellis’s proposal, and this discussion, if 
there was never a choice in the matter in the first place?


On 8/15/16, 2:03 PM, "Chris Mattmann"  wrote:

I’m sorry but you are massively confused if you believe that the ASF 
mailing lists
aren’t the source of truth. They are. That’s not optional. If you are 
an ASF project,
mailing lists are the source of truth. Period.

On 8/15/16, 11:01 AM, "Michael Kjellman"  
wrote:

I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very 
findable for new people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able 
to find the same thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in 
the project in the first place.

Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific 
issues to the attention of the broader community. It should never be the source 
of truth.

best,
kjellman

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:

Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are 
*already*
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to 
engage the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the 
committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the 
project. The mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache 
project. They *are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.



On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" 
> wrote:

   I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

   On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita 
> wrote:

As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be 
able
to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
written to the comment or text.
If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step 
that
isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
>
wrote:
This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good 
start
to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.



On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:

   Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just 
proposed,
it wouldn’t be an issue.

   The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

   No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those 
announcements
and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Russell Bradberry]

So then what was the point of Ellis’s proposal, and this discussion, if there 
was never a choice in the matter in the first place?


On 8/15/16, 2:03 PM, "Chris Mattmann"  wrote:

I’m sorry but you are massively confused if you believe that the ASF 
mailing lists
aren’t the source of truth. They are. That’s not optional. If you are an 
ASF project,
mailing lists are the source of truth. Period.

On 8/15/16, 11:01 AM, "Michael Kjellman"  
wrote:

I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very findable 
for new people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able to find 
the same thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in the 
project in the first place.

Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific issues 
to the attention of the broader community. It should never be the source of 
truth.

best,
kjellman

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:

Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are 
*already*
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage 
the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. 
The mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. 
They *are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.



On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" 
> wrote:

   I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

   On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita 
> wrote:

As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
written to the comment or text.
If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
>
wrote:
This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.



On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:

   Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
it wouldn’t be an issue.

   The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

   No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

   This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
   dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
don’t care about.

   We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

   --
   AY

   On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann 
(mattm...@apache.org)
wrote:

   Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
fine, but realize,
   there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
watching
   the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
so you are basically
   forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
JIRA.





   On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
>
wrote:

   I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it
belongs.

   You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to
dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.

   --
   AY
 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

I’m sorry but you are massively confused if you believe that the ASF mailing 
lists
aren’t the source of truth. They are. That’s not optional. If you are an ASF 
project,
mailing lists are the source of truth. Period.

On 8/15/16, 11:01 AM, "Michael Kjellman"  wrote:

I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very findable for 
new people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able to find the 
same thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in the project 
in the first place.

Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific issues to 
the attention of the broader community. It should never be the source of truth.

best,
kjellman

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:

Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already*
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. The 
mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. They 
*are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.



On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" 
> wrote:

   I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

   On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita 
> wrote:

As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
written to the comment or text.
If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
>
wrote:
This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.



On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:

   Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
it wouldn’t be an issue.

   The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

   No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

   This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
   dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
don’t care about.

   We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

   --
   AY

   On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann 
(mattm...@apache.org)
wrote:

   Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
fine, but realize,
   there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
watching
   the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
so you are basically
   forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
JIRA.





   On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
>
wrote:

   I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it
belongs.

   You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to
dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.

   --
   AY

   On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Michael Kjellman]

I'm a big fan of mailing lists, but google makes issues very findable for new 
people to the project as JIRA gets indexed. They won't be able to find the same 
thing on an email they didn't get -- because they weren't in the project in the 
first place.

Mailing lists are good for broad discussion or bringing specific issues to the 
attention of the broader community. It should never be the source of truth.

best,
kjellman

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:

Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already*
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. The 
mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. They *are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.



On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams" 
> wrote:

   I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

   On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita 
> wrote:

As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
written to the comment or text.
If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
>
wrote:
This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.



On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:

   Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
it wouldn’t be an issue.

   The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

   No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

   This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
   dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
don’t care about.

   We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

   --
   AY

   On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann 
(mattm...@apache.org)
wrote:

   Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
fine, but realize,
   there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
watching
   the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
so you are basically
   forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
JIRA.





   On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
>
wrote:

   I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it
belongs.

   You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to
dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.

   --
   AY

   On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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 
>
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 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

Realize it’s not just about committers and PMC members that are *already* 
on the PMC or that are developing the project. It’s about how to engage the
*entire* community including those that are not yet on the committer or
PMC roster. That is the future (and current) lifeblood of the project. The 
mailing
list aren’t just an unfortunate necessity of being an Apache project. They *are*
the lifeblood of the Apache project.



On 8/15/16, 10:44 AM, "Brandon Williams"  wrote:

I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita  wrote:

> As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
> to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.
>
> I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
> interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
> written to the comment or text.
> If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
> that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
> isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.
>
> So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
> > This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
> needs to be
> > inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
> to that.
> > I hope to see more inclusivity here.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
> >
> > Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
> it wouldn’t be an issue.
> >
> > The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
> summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).
> >
> > No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
> and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.
> >
> > This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
> and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
> > dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
> don’t care about.
> >
> > We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org)
> wrote:
> >
> > Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
> fine, but realize,
> > there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
> watching
> > the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
> so you are basically
> > forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
> JIRA.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:
> >
> > I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
> on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it
> belongs.
> >
> > You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to
> dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (
> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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 
> 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 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Yuki Morishita]

As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.

I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
written to the comment or text.
If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.

So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there needs to 
> be
> inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start to 
> that.
> I hope to see more inclusivity here.
>
>
>
> On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
>
> Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed, it 
> wouldn’t be an issue.
>
> The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a summary, a 
> link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).
>
> No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements and 
> start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.
>
> This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important, and 
> at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
> dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you don’t 
> care about.
>
> We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, 
> but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
> watching
> the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so 
> you are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
>
> I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on 
> the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
>
> You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ 
> and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
> (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Yuki Morishita
 t:yukim (http://twitter.com/yukim)

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there needs to be
inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start to that.
I hope to see more inclusivity here.



On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:

Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed, it 
wouldn’t be an issue.

The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a summary, a link 
to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements and 
start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important, and at 
the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you don’t 
care about.

We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

-- 
AY

On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org) wrote:

Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, 
but realize,  
there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
watching  
the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you 
are basically  
forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.  





On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:  

I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the 
dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.  

You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and 
then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.  

--  
AY  

On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
(jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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  

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

On 8/15/16, 10:27 AM, "Jeremiah D Jordan"  wrote:

>  In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are 
basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.

This is why I proposed we send a link to the design lira’s to the dev list.

Sure, except I didn’t read that mail yet. Give me more than a few minutes to 
catch up. I saw Aleksey’s email, so I replied to it.

> Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
watching

I don’t see how a JIRA dedicated to a specific issue is “high noise” ?  
That single JIRA is much lower noise, it only has conversations around that 
specific ticket.  All conversations happening on the dev list at once seems 
much “higher noise” to me.

I never said that. I said that JIRA itself has high noise around it’s signal. 
You get
an email with links at the top, and you get dates, times, and a whole 
surrounding
envelope email that you have to dig through to find the actual conversation. 
Then,
to reply to it, I’ve got to click to an external site out of my mail browser, 
then possibly
log in, and then interact there.

The point being that it’s not as straight forward as simply email. Realize, 
that you
are trying to capture the minimum viable interaction and to try and be the most
inclusive for your dev community. Having convos on the dev list is part of that.

JIRA is a great tool for what it does – but it should not be the minimum entry 
point
for a (healthy) project. Sure you can cite X, Y, Z projects that do it. In most 
cases,
I can cite eventual community issues with doing that and a lot of pain/work to 
use
it correctly.

Chris


-Jeremiah

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> 
> Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, 
but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
watching
> the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so 
you are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
> 
>I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs 
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
> 
>You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ 
and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
> 
>-- 
>AY
> 
>On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
(jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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.  
>> 
>> --  
>> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Russell Bradberry]

I would also like to add, that for posterity’s sake, JIRA is much more 
friendly.  People want to understand the reasoning behind the changes that have 
been made.  Like why did we default to G1GC?  These are all kept in the 
discussions on the JIRA tickets that implemented the features. Navigating 
through endless emails in the dev list and making sense of it is extremely 
tedious and very difficult to get the full picture around the decisions being 
made.





On 8/15/16, 1:27 PM, "Jeremiah D Jordan"  wrote:

>  In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are 
basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.

This is why I proposed we send a link to the design lira’s to the dev list.

> Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
watching

I don’t see how a JIRA dedicated to a specific issue is “high noise” ?  
That single JIRA is much lower noise, it only has conversations around that 
specific ticket.  All conversations happening on the dev list at once seems 
much “higher noise” to me.

-Jeremiah

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> 
> Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, 
but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be 
watching
> the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so 
you are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
> 
>I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs 
on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
> 
>You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ 
and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
> 
>-- 
>AY
> 
>On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
(jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

>  In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.

This is why I proposed we send a link to the design lira’s to the dev list.

> Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching

I don’t see how a JIRA dedicated to a specific issue is “high noise” ?  That 
single JIRA is much lower noise, it only has conversations around that specific 
ticket.  All conversations happening on the dev list at once seems much “higher 
noise” to me.

-Jeremiah

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> 
> Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but 
> realize,
> there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching
> the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you 
> are basically
> forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:
> 
>I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on 
> the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
> 
>You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and 
> then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
> 
>-- 
>AY
> 
>On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
> (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed, it wouldn’t 
be an issue.

The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a summary, a link to 
the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).

No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements and start 
watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.

This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important, and at the 
same time you won’t be receiving mail from
dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you don’t care 
about.

We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.

-- 
AY

On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org) wrote:

Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but 
realize,  
there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching  
the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are 
basically  
forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.  





On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:  

I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the 
dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.  

You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and then 
start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.  

--  
AY  

On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 
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  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  

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Chris Mattmann]

Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is fine, but 
realize,
there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be watching
the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are 
basically
forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.





On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  wrote:

I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the 
dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.

You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and 
then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.

-- 
AY

On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan 
(jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 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  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  

Re: Contribution to apache Cassandra wiki

[Dave Brosius]

try now!

---


On 2016-08-14 07:06, Bartek Kowalczyk wrote:

Hi,
here http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FrontPage I found information how 
to

contribute, so if it is possible, it is my username: bartekkowalczyk.

I wanted to update class names in
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ArchitectureCommitLog (these are now
longer valid)


Cheers !

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[sankalp kohli]

+1
We should do this for large contributions. Also we should link the dev
discussion thread in the JIRA for reference.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan <
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> 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  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
>
>

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the 
dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.

You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and then 
start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.

-- 
AY

On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) 
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  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  

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

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  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

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jonathan Haddad]

(non binding) +1

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:23 AM Jonathan Ellis  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
>

Contribution to apache Cassandra wiki

[Bartek Kowalczyk]

Hi,
here http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FrontPage I found information how to
contribute, so if it is possible, it is my username: bartekkowalczyk.

I wanted to update class names in
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ArchitectureCommitLog (these are now
longer valid)


Cheers !

A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

[Jonathan Ellis]

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