One of the points from later last week that I'm both grateful for, and wish
to acknowledge:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 15 March 2013 20:13, matt j. sorenson m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
What I get back is this is what we've always done, so this
geez when do u folks sleep?!
I appreciate this thread and I did still want to respond - in gratitude -
for a number of the points raised. The best takeaway here is holy crap,
what an awesome active community couchdb has, right now!
Now, I have a couple of 17-month-olds who were up most of the
Hey folks,
I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18
These just happen to be two pull requests I looked at today, there are more.
On the one hand, this is great. Obviously. Any sort of constructive
Might another solution be to add dev@couchdb.apache.org to the Github
repos. Wouldn't that mean that new comments would be posted to the list? If
we could do that, it would side step the entire problem. (Namely: exposing
these discussions to the dev list.)
Can someone think of a way to do this
It's a minor point, and probably not worth me sending another email, but I
guess the framing in my original email was wrong. It's not that we
shouldn't be having discussions on PRs, or that activity shouldn't be
happening on Github. That's not the problem, and I retract the parts where
I imply
I think requiring the mailing list is counter intuitive. I know what the rules
and regulations are, but it's often an advantage when comments and discussion
happen where the related code is. Everything else (e.g. copy/pasting URL
references in an additional email to satisfy maybe slightly
On Mar 15, 2013, at 13:36 , till klimp...@gmail.com wrote:
I think requiring the mailing list is counter intuitive. I know what the
rules and regulations are, but it's often an advantage when comments and
discussion happen where the related code is. Everything else (e.g.
copy/pasting URL
Till, yeah. My original email was my knee-jerk. And I knew it sounded
awful as I was writing it. (See the end of the email for the admission of
that.) I think pulling in the comments *from* Github is the way forward
here. I see Jan is pursing this with Infra at the moment. Thanks Jan! And
thanks
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Till, yeah. My original email was my knee-jerk. And I knew it sounded
awful as I was writing it. (See the end of the email for the admission of
that.) I think pulling in the comments *from* Github is the way forward
here. I
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
^ I opened that one (obviously(?))
https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18
These just happen to be two
I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems with the way we do things at
Apache, Matt. But there are very good reasons for all of these things. And
I am happy to talk to you about them, if you're interested?
We keep things on our own infrastructure so that we are vendor neutral, and
so that we
Note to the list. I am flagging this thread as something to distill into
our community guide. I think it's important we talk about this somewhere
that is a little less easy to loose than a mailing list post. (And
unfortunately, it is not clear in the main ASF doc that we mirror things to
the
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Note to the list. I am flagging this thread as something to distill into
our community guide. I think it's important we talk about this somewhere
that is a little less easy to loose than a mailing list post.
I suspect
Yeah, probably. I have a love/hate relationship with most technology.
Mailing list software is no exception. It sort of gets the job done, but
could be better in many respects. It's what we have though, so it's up to
us to figure out how to make the most of it.
Something that keeps me sane is
(I would also point out that we're not expected to use the ML as the
default place to go to to find out information about the project. We can
search the archives, for sure, but that should be a last remote. Important
information, decisions, etc, should be taken out, and put in the code, in
JIRA,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
^ I opened that one (obviously(?))
I've actually been noticing a bit of a disconnect between GitHub PR
discussions and the mailing list.
I suppose I should finally tell everyone that as a bit of an
experiment I've actually been actively ignoring any CouchDB related
PRs to see how much discussion leaked through to the mailing list.
Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation.
This makes a lot of sense. Anyone remember Google Code? Remember how
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I'd like to bring two things to your
On 15 March 2013 20:13, matt j. sorenson m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
What I get back is this is what we've always done, so this is what we'll
always do, which is fine.
I think that's a little unfair, Matt.
Admittedly, my first instinct is to say this is policy, it's not changing,
suck it
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 21:40 , Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient
I see Paul's argument, but I don't think it's a blocker.
In my head, I imagined something like this:
1. PR is opened
2. ASF script sends notification to ML
3. Someone spots it on the ML, goes to Github, posts a comment
4. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML
5. Original PR
We used to use stg for shipping patch sets about. Having a series of patches
appear by mail that you can apply to a local review branch was pretty nice and
the tool will bundle things up and mail em for you.
On Friday, 15 March 2013 at 19:58, Paul Davis wrote:
I've actually been noticing a
@noah I don't think we should stop at the notification. All the
comments should be sent to the ml. If not then we have to go on github
to see it. Also what if github disappear or become expensive, or
.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Simon Metson si...@cloudant.com wrote:
We used to use
Sorry, Benoit. Yes that's exactly what I mean. The comment should be sent
to the list. Just like comments on JIRA tickets are also sent to the list.
And like JIRA, if you want to reply, you click the link, and make your
comment on the site.
On 15 March 2013 21:07, Benoit Chesneau
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
paul.joseph.da...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
m...@sorensonbros.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater
Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF
project.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I see Paul's
I'd also point out that some email clients do terrible things to
GitHub comments when using the reply to comment bit. Not a blocker
but it annoys me enough to mention it.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Sorry, Benoit. Yes that's exactly what I mean. The
On 15.03.2013, at 22:16, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson m...@sorensonbros.net
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
paul.joseph.da...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
On 15.03.2013, at 22:23, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF
project.
Even
We wouldn't be saying that you need a Github account to contribute to
CouchDB. In fact, you could post your comment to the mailing list. You
could post it via email to the original author. You could simply wait for
the PR to be merged in, and then veto the change, or what have you.
And I know
I might also point out that he ML policy is not about ensuring that
committers can do everything via the ML, or even about ensuring that
committers can contribute to the project without ever having to use an
external service. (Think about the fact that we're using Travis for CI,
ReadTheDocs for
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@php.net wrote:
On 15.03.2013, at 22:16, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson m...@sorensonbros.net
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
On 15.03.2013, at 22:23, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
was an
On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm personally fine with enabling as much
collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
on multiple fronts it is not and can not be the central hub of
development for an Apache project.
This is a
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm personally fine with enabling as much
collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
on multiple fronts it is not and can
Benoit, that is the whole point of this thread. Making sure that Github
does *not* become the sole location of important development discussions. I
am trying to make the *current situation* better. I am proposing a solution
that would turn Github pull requests into something that would work
I would like to suggest that we bring this thread to an end. I know it is
frustrating a few people, and it is certainly starting to show in my
emails, and we're not really making any progress aside.
I would ask that if you have any remaining questions about project
governance or the Apache way,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Benoit, that is the whole point of this thread. Making sure that Github
does *not* become the sole location of important development discussions. I
am trying to make the *current situation* better. I am proposing a solution
I agree Benoit. This sounds like a better workflow for the project.
All I am saying is that if people want to use Github anyway, I don't think
we can stop them. And I don't think we should try. I think we should be
making it as easy to contribute to CouchDB as possible, and that includes
Github.
I think one or both of us is misunderstanding the other. First I'll
stop and write up my internal understanding of the current policy so
that we can hopefully compare notes more directly.
First, the ASF has a pretty specific policy on using the project
mailing lists to coordinate project activity
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm personally fine with enabling as much
collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
on multiple fronts it is not and can
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I would like to suggest that we bring this thread to an end. I know it is
frustrating a few people, and it is certainly starting to show in my
emails, and we're not really making any progress aside.
I would ask that if you
On 15 March 2013 23:20, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a much larger social issue here that is just as much about
perception as it is about the technical side of things and that's that
people need to understand that this is where the Discussion happens.
This is
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Read Benoit's email again. He essentially suggested shutting down the
mirror. :(
No i'm not . I'm suggesting to close PRs which is quite different.
I will summarise my view in better words later in the day. Not the
best
Sure thing. :) Unfortunately, closing PRs means closing Github. (That's the
only way you could do it.) Though, if was reasonably certain that the rest
of your message was hinting at the same idea... :)
On 16 March 2013 00:56, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at
47 matches
Mail list logo
