On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > >> Hi Chip, >> >> Chip Childers wrote: >>> Let me try that again, this time with content! >>> >>> I've dropped private@, since this doesn't belong there. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Rohit Yadav<rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> Daan Hoogland wrote: >>>>> I do not see why the PMC should drive defining the >>>>> standard. This is something that should be carried and cherished by >>>>> all developers. >>>> >>>> In my experience when something is everyone's responsibility, eventually >>>> no one is responsible for it. >>>> >>>> I think the PMC should drive it because IMHO the PMC comprises of our >>>> project management folks who have decision making powers and are >>>> officially responsible for the project as recognized by the ASF [1]. >>>> >>>> Therefore, I'm requesting our PMC to come up with a convention along >>>> with committers/developers on this issue and enforce it using some >>>> tooling etc. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.htm >>> >>> Everyone here is part of the community, and everyone deserves a say in >>> how this is done. If you're suggesting that PMC members should be >>> involved in this discussion, agreed! But should should committers and >>> contributors! >> >> Thanks Chip -- I'm with you on this. >> >> I'm trying to say is -- shared responsibility is tricky, in most cases >> no one would be responsible eventually, *unless*… >> > > That's really a bar discussion :). > > At Apache we govern by consensus. Any technical decisions (especially one > like this), needs to be agreed upon by the community as a whole. > The agreement will happen through discussion on the dev list. > > For us to change, we need people (who believe that what we are doing > currently is wrong) to step up, explain the issues and make a proposal. > Then by iterating and discussing the proposal we will reach consensus. > > At least that's how I view things. > > I re-opened the thread because no-one picked it up, and as you say it's a > shame. > > IMHO our development methodology is totally broken and this is best shown by > our inability to release on-time. > > I am interested to take on the 4.5 or 4.6 RM duties if we agree to change our > workflow significantly. > > Personally, I would like to freeze master and make the development happen > somewhere else. > > Basically master should be our releasable branch and once we merge things in > master we end up with working releases. > I would go further and actually propose that only the RM gets to merge in > master. > > I think if we started from a working release tag it would mean that we would > never miss a release on time. Only the scope of the features would be > affected. > > Until we have a proper review/test/commit CI setup we should not allow > committing to master. > > I am still thinking through this, but once I have a clear idea, I plan to > make a proposal by writing a new workflow on the wiki. > > ideas, thoughts, flames ? > > -sebastien > This is also a good read, against cherry-picking (back to Rajani's original point): http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2013/09/07/no-cherry-picking.html (even wondering if Rohit did not send this to the list already…) -sebastien > >> Regards, >> Rohit Yadav >> Software Architect, ShapeBlue >> M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com >> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab >> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services >> >> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> >> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> >> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> >> CloudStack Infrastructure >> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> >> CloudStack Bootcamp Training >> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> >> >> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended >> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or >> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily >> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the >> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based >> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender >> if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a >> company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a >> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue >> Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil >> and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered >> trademark. >
