Consensus. We resolve debates by going into them knowing that we need to find consensus. A vote is a last step to prove that consensus exists, and in most cases is not necessary.
Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you and FJ have a difference of opinion about refactoring changes. Two extreme positions would be (1) we don't accept changes that only refactor code, (2) and I assert my right to contribute a refactoring change at any point in the project lifecycle. A debate that starts with those positions is never going to reach consensus. A better starting point might be "I would like to make the following change because I believe it would be beneficial. How could I best structure it / time it to minimize impact?" On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:19 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org
