Thanks Vikram!

I will try to join the next meeting and see if I can help with anything
(providing that the CI and providers will not be eating all of my time.

J.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:51 AM Vikram Koka <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have updated our meeting notes document to summarize the discussion from
> our call last week. Sorry that it took so long.
> Thank you all who joined the call.
>
> To all those who attended, can you please double-check and add if I missed
> anything?
> To all those who didn't join, if you disagree to anything covered, please
> voice your opinion.
> Also, please let me know if you want to include anything in Next call's
> Agenda.
> *Key Decisions:*
>
>    -
>
>    Labels
>    -
>
>       Purpose: Labels should be non-temporal in nature and should
>       indicate the following two elements:
>       -
>
>       “Kind” should indicate “what kind of issue it is” i.e. “bug”,
>       “feature”, “doc change”, “performance improvement”
>       -
>
>       “Area” should indicate the area of the code: Scheduler, Webserver,
>       etc. One use of the “Area” is to say who/which group of people should
>       review the PR. For example, Daniel filters by “area/kubernetes” which 
> makes
>       it easier to find it.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>       Products should be folded into “area”. So, “area/helm-chart”
>       -
>
>       “Need” which is a temporary state for an issue, before the above
>       two labels are assigned. Primarily, until one or more committers can 
> weigh
>       in, though some may need discussion on the mailing list.
>       -
>
>       What should they be: An initial non-exhaustive  list of all the
>       labels is below.
>       -
>
>       kind/bug, kind/feature, kind/documentation, kind/performance
>       -
>
>       kind/enhancement: this is an improvement to an existing feature.
>       This is somewhat subjective vs. a new feature, but this is useful to
>       generate a change log as part of a release.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>       area/webserver, area/scheduler, area/executor, area/providers
>       (area/providers/google, area/providers/amazon, area/providers/azure,
>       area/providers/other)
>       -
>
>       Currently, we also have area/providers/apache, but that should be
>       replaced by area/providers/other
>       -
>
>       area/webserver - includes User Interface (and UX)
>       -
>
>       area/docker-image
>       -
>
>       area/kubernetes - can be used along with other areas, to reflect
>       that this touches kubernetes. For example, an issue could have both:
>       area/executor and area/kubernetes
>       -
>
>       area/breeze
>       -
>
>       area/helm-chart
>       -
>
>       area/core - covers anything else
>       -
>
>       Others to be deprecated include: area/logging which would now be
>       included in area/core
>
>
>
>    -
>
>       need/discussion: some method to get discussion from committers, but
>       is not specifically an issue for a particular area.
>       -
>
>       Example: Issue opened regarding “deprecating mssql hook”.
>       https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8458 Should we still do
>       this or not? Not necessarily, something that needs to be on the dev 
> mailing
>       list.
>       -
>
>
>       -
>
>       need/triage: default starting point for an issue.
>       -
>
>       “Need” labels are intended to be temporary, until they can be
>       processed. These should not be long lived. Only needed until one or more
>       committers can weigh in.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>       What labels should not be touched because of release management:
>       “pinned” - only relevant for PRs, not for issues.
>       -
>
>       Labels for community development: Good-first-issue, hacktoberfest
>       -
>
>
>       -
>
>       Epic? - Let’s use milestones or projects for Epics. Let’s not
>       clutter up the label list with temporary labels for AIPs or Epics.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>       How / when assigned:
>       -
>
>       Automatically any new issue will be added a “need/triage” label.
>       And then when one of “us” is going over the new issues, the labels from
>       this document will be added/applied.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    Milestones
>    -
>
>       Purpose: Temporal in nature. Useful for release management
>       purposes. Will generally be used to represent releases (targets)
>       -
>
>       Examples: What issues do we want to get into a particular release?
>       Or, what releases do we want to backport issues to?
>       -
>
>       Feature releases - may need a milestone such as 2.1
>       -
>
>       Patch releases - may be more Kanban style, but may have a milestone
>       as well such as 2.0.1
>       -
>
>       Milestone on a PR implies: This PR should be merged into that
>       particular release
>       -
>
>       Milestone on an Issue: Target issue resolution for that release.
>       -
>
>       What should they be:
>       -
>
>       Right now, useful milestones: 2.0beta1, 2.0beta2, 2.0rc1, 1.10.13
>       (critical bug fixes only)
>       -
>
>       Providers will be independently versioned and be in small releases
>       - so potentially can just use kanban style.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    Priority
>    -
>
>       Purpose: Yes, let’s use priorities.
>       -
>
>       What should they be: Google vs. Kubernetes vs. other.
>       -
>
>       Let’s use Kubernetes style priorities, as opposed to the Google
>       style priorities, since they are easier to understand for most people.
>       -
>
>       This is primarily for prioritization and release management.
>
>
> *Next steps:*
>
>    -
>
>    Update google doc - Vikram
>    -
>
>    Send to dev list - Vikram
>    -
>
>    Follow-up call next Tuesday? - Vikram to schedule
>    -
>
>    Investigate applying these by next call  - Paola
>    -
>
>    Discuss Tooling in the next call. Triage party proposed by Kamil.
>
>
>
> *Doc links*:
> *Meeting notes*:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fx46SoOnNLiqZKtrC-tOHj3zFlZfQwWuR2LRFXJnWqw/
> *Original doc*:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jqmXO6mGZzHkhuvISedQVnhyc37V_iz00hokdMuoFaI/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vikram
>
>
>
>

-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Reply via email to