I would like like learn what is the Apache way to resolve debates. But you are right, this question probably doesn't deserve that. Thanks for guidance Julian.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 16:43, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > May I suggest that a vote is not the solution. In this discussion I see > two people beating each other over the head with policy. > > Let’s strive to operate according to the Apache way. Accept contributions > on merit in a timely manner. Avoid the urge to “project manage”. > > Julian > > > On Dec 7, 2018, at 07:03, Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The previous consensus community decision seems to be to not use PR > > milestones for any PRs except bugs. To change this policy, probably there > > should be a committer (or PPMC?) vote. > > > >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 20:49, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> FJ, > >> > >> What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like project management. If a > >> contributor makes a contribution, that contribution should be given a > fair > >> review in a timely fashion and be committed based on its merits. You > >> overstate the time-sensitivity of contributions. I would imagine that > there > >> are only a few days preceding each release where stability is a major > >> concern. At any other times, contributions can go in after a review. > >> > >> Remember that in Apache, no one person or group of people determines the > >> technical direction of the project, nor the timing of the releases. > >> Contributions are accepted based on merit, and release timing is > determined > >> by consensus. > >> > >> Let’s be sure not to overuse milestone policy. Milestones should be for > >> guidance only. > >> > >> Julian > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Fangjin Yang <fang...@imply.io> wrote: > >>> > >>> Roman - one of the roles of a committer is to make decisions on what is > >>> best for Druid and the Druid community. If a committer feels that their > >> PR > >>> should be included in the next release, they should make an argument of > >> why > >>> that is. Conversely, if folks in the community feel that a PR should > not > >> be > >>> included, they should be free to voice their opinion as well. > >>> > >>> Many of the community contributions I see today are adding value to the > >>> project and we should try to include them in upcoming releases. The > PRs I > >>> see adding no value are unnecessary refactoring of that serve no real > >>> purpose. They don't make the code stable, easier to maintain, or add > new > >>> features, and look to be submitted only to increase total contribution > >> line > >>> count to Druid. I think we should aim to prevent these types of PRs in > >> any > >>> release because they don't serve to benefit the community. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:24 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fangjin, what you suggest will lead to just one thing - all committers > >> will > >>>> always assign their PRs to the next release milestone. In addition, > you > >>>> also assign PRs from non-committers to the next release milestone. So > >>>> nearly 100% of new PRs will have that milestone. It will make this > whole > >>>> activity pointless, because the milestone will not tell release > managers > >>>> anything. Except maybe creating unneeded sense of rush. > >>>> > >>>> Currently in Druid, there is a good fraction of PRs that are merged > very > >>>> quickly (in a matter of days and sometimes hours), but there are also > >> quite > >>>> some less lucky PRs that linger for months. For contributors, it's not > >> very > >>>> important that the PR is merged in 1 hour, it's more important that it > >>>> appears in the next release. Therefore we need to optimize for the > >> fraction > >>>> of PRs that are merged in 1 month or less (the average time between > >>>> creation of a new release branch and a final release date). Reviewers > >>>> should schedule their time so that there are less PRs that are merged > in > >>>> less than one day, but more PRs that are merged in less than one > month. > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 04:28, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree with you that merging PRs promptly is very important for > >> growing > >>>>> community. Or, if the PR is inadequate, promptly explain to the > >>>> contributor > >>>>> what they can do to improve it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Assigning target milestones to bugs and issues that don’t yet have > PRs > >>>> can > >>>>> be problematic. The person assigning the milestone has stepped into > the > >>>>> role of project manager, unless they are committing to fix the issue > >>>>> personally. And even then, they are implicitly saying “hold the > release > >>>>> while I work on this code”, which should really be the responsibility > >> of > >>>>> the release manager alone. > >>>>> > >>>>> Julian > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 3, 2018, at 1:57 PM, Fangjin Yang <fang...@imply.io> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Committers. In general I think we should try to be more inclusive of > >>>> the > >>>>>> community and people that are interested in contributing to Druid > and > >>>> try > >>>>>> to get their PRs in as much as possible. This helps to grow the > >>>>> community. > >>>>>> To me, this means assigning milestones to contributions, not being > >>>> overly > >>>>>> picky on code (if it has no real impact on > functionality/performance). > >>>> If > >>>>>> we need to push PRs back to a later release because they are > >>>> complicated > >>>>>> and require more review, we can always do that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:45 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fangjin, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You wrote > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> we should try to assign milestones to PRs we want > >>>>>>>> to get in > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you please define “we”? Do you mean committers, PMC members, > >>>> release > >>>>>>> managers, everyone? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Julian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Roman Leventov <leven...@apache.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> About a year ago, Gian wrote ( > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/druid-development/QPZUIzLtZ2I/eZyw8BoVCgAJ > >>>>>>>> ): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "For milestones, I think it would work to use them only for > >>>> PRs/issues > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> are truly release blockers -- should be limited to critical bugs > >>>>>>> discovered > >>>>>>>> after a release branch is cut. We could make release notes the way > >>>> you > >>>>>>>> suggest, by walking the commit history." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Today, Fangjin wrote ( > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6656#issuecomment-441698159 > >>>>>>> ): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "I think where possible we should try to assign milestones to PRs > we > >>>>> want > >>>>>>>> to get in and aim to have the PR reviewed and merged before then. > If > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> PR > >>>>>>>> needs to be pushed back to a future release we can always do > that." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Personally I don't agree with the second take and differentiating > >>>>> non-bug > >>>>>>>> fixing PRs by their "importance". I think the proportion of PRs > that > >>>>> are > >>>>>>>> assigned the next milestone by committer will depend on > >>>> self-confidence > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> the committer and politics, not the objective importance of the > PRs. > >>>> It > >>>>>>>> will also make possible for some minor PRs to be sidetracked for > >>>>>>> extremely > >>>>>>>> long time if not forever, because there always other more > important > >>>> PRs > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> work on. While true in the short and mid run, this is very > >>>> frustrating > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the authors and could turn them away from contributing into Druid, > >>>> that > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> bad in the long run. Actually this thing happens already sometimes > >>>> and > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> should think how to address that, but differentiating PRs could > >>>>>>>> only exacerbate this effect. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Instead, I think the importance of PR should grow with the time > >>>> passed > >>>>>>>> since the author addressed all comments (or just created the PR) > and > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> PR > >>>>>>>> passed automated checks. I. e. a freshly created PR may be not > super > >>>>>>>> important, but if it passes all checks and is open for two months > >>>>> without > >>>>>>>> reviews, the PR becomes more important to review. This should help > >> to > >>>>>>>> reduce the variance in PR's time-to-merge and improve the average > >>>>>>>> contributor experience. In the long run I think it's healthier > than > >>>>>>>> squeezing one extra feature into the very next release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org > >
