Phew, mea culpa! I have zero clue why I never received the replies but I see them here:
https://s.apache.org/vfw1 I’ll be reading the replies now. Thanks, Todd. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:22 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Creating more actual (non-code-auto-emails) discussion on the M/L >Hey Chris, > >Maybe something's wrong with your email? There were several replies from >JD >Cryans, Mike Percy, Adar Dembo, and David Alves in this thread. > >-Todd > >On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> I’m a bit worried that it’s been almost a week and not one person >> has discussed this here besides Todd and/or I. There are 9 committers >> and 7 mentors per [1]. Where is everybody? >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/kudu.html >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: [email protected] >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: jpluser <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" >><[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:00 PM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Creating more actual (non-code-auto-emails) discussion on >>the >> M/L >> >> >Thanks for the reply Todd. Unfortunately it's more systematic than >>that. >> >Apologies for top post but am on my phone. Couple points: >> > >> >- interested to hear from others besides you on this. No offense but I >> >think it's important that project members send email here to reply. >> > >> >- I hand counted the 4 threads of interest. Didn't run a fancy command >> >but to be honest it's more indicative of the broader issue. Things >>aren't >> >always solved through fancy greps and tools like gerrit. This is going >>to >> >be a core issue with Kudu's incubation - how is someone not sitting in >>a >> >cube working on the project who isn't on those tools like gerrit and >> >slack which don't exist at the ASF going to join on the project? >> > >> >- Even considering 40 threads I doubt there have only be <= 40 >> >*decisions* on the project to date. IOW they are being made somewhere >>but >> >it's unclear where. Email is easy to follow on a phone on the go >> >whatever. >> > >> >As a mentor I would not be comfortable with Kudu being a TLP at this >> >point bc frankly projects need to use their dev list for more than >> >automated discussion and big reports. Simple as that and sending a >> >transcript of where convo is happening elsewhere is not going to cut it >> >unfortunately. >> > >> >Email is slow and deliberate and not as fast or slick as gerrit etc, >>but >> >that's a good thing. It allows people the time needed to read and join >>an >> >OSS community. It's too hard to do that with Kudu right now. >> > >> >Cheers, >> >Chris >> > >> >Sent from my iPhone >> > >> >> On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey Chris, >> >> >> >> Responses inline: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Team, >> >>> >> >>> I looked at: >> >>> >> >>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev >> >>> >> >>> And over the last 4 months and Kudu’s inception, we have had >> >>> well over 2k+ emails, and looking back I found 4 actual threads >> >>> during that time (and one of which was a release VOTE thread) >> >>> that wasn’t automatically generated by Gerrit. >> >>> >> >>> Mar 2016 438 >> >>> Feb 2016 1003 >> >>> Jan 2016 1143 >> >>> Dec 2015 12 >> >> >> >> Hmm, I did a search in my inbox for: [email protected] >> >>-gerrit >> >> -jira -"git commit" -dev-help -"svn commit" -moderate -"git push >> >>summary" >> >> and counted 30-35 threads. You're right, of course, that JIRA and >>gerrit >> >> eclipse the amount of email discussion, though. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> If we are going to become an ASF top level project, the project >> >>> discussion has to happen on the mailing list. We had similar >> >>> issues in Spark and I realize that lots of project work is assisted >> >>> by tools and other technologies, but at the ASF, “if it didn’t >> >>> happen on the mailing list, it didn’t happen.” More-over it’s hard >> >>> to parse signal from noise in all these automated messages. Frankly >> >>> I don’t really know if anything good is going on - I know things >> >>> are going on, and I assume they are good, but it’s extremely hard >> >>> to verify that. >> >> >> >> I think it's worth noting that the "automated' messages are typically >> >>code >> >> review requests and responses, which are developer discussion. Our >> >> project's culture is usually to use JIRAs and/or 'work-in-progress' >> >>patches >> >> in gerrit to communicate when we find a bug or want an opinion on >> >> something. For example, today I found a new bug >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-1369 and wrote up a quick >> >> work-in-progress for a a proposed solution and put it up at >> >> http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2514/ . I think it would be >> >>redundant >> >> to also send an email to the list saying "Hey guys, I found a bug, >> >>here's a >> >> description". >> >> >> >> The same goes for design discussion -- eg >> >> http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2443/ is a recent gerrit post >>that >> >>Dan >> >> made for a new feature he's working on. In this case he also sent an >> >>email >> >> to the dev list to point out the gerrit in case anyone missed it. I >> >>imagine >> >> a lot of people would filter the gerrit emails out of their inbox but >> >>not >> >> direct emails to the list (gerrit provides both headers and a subject >> >>line >> >> tag to make it easy to do) >> >> >> >> In terms of daily dev discussion, most of it has been happening on >>our >> >> Slack -- eg earlier today three contributors were discussing >>in-progress >> >> efforts on Spark RDD integration and sharing code via that channel. >> >>Most of >> >> the community members we've seen so far have tended to prefer this >>quick >> >> back-and-forth for discussion. >> >> >> >> Of course any _decisions_ will be made on the mailing list. If you >> >>think it >> >> would be useful to send a daily slack log to the mailing list, we >>can do >> >> that as well. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I have a possible suggestions: >> >>> >> >>> * Create a [email protected] and send all automated >> >>> traffic there. *-issues is one option; we could make another name >>for >> >>> it. >> >> >> >> Sure, we could do that. But, isn't it just as easy for people to set >>up >> >>a >> >> filter for 'kudu-CR' if they want to move those messages elsewhere? >>Our >> >> initial motivation when setting up mailing lists was to avoid having >>too >> >> many (makes it a pain for people to subscribe to them all). >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> That will help to separate the signal from the noise in terms of >> >>> dev/architectural/etc. discussions from code reviews and automated >> >>> commit messages. >> >>> >> >>> One thing you may say is that dev/architectural discussions are >> >>>happening >> >>> but they are in Gerrit. I would then say it’s extremely difficult to >> >>> separate the signal from the noise here, and as such, could be >> >>>contributing >> >>> towards making it difficult for others to join the project, >>something >> >>> that we identified as an issue in our Incubator report. >> >> >> >> Right. One option is that, for patches with bigger discussion, we can >> >>add a >> >> gerrit "reviewer" which is actually the dev mailing list. This would >> >>cause >> >> the discussion to be CCed there, and bring it to the attention of >>more >> >> people. Another thought is to do as you suggest above and move gerrit >> >> elsewhere, and just have a policy that whenever any gerrit starts >> >>getting >> >> architectural, that we send a ping to the dev mailing list to point >>it >> >>out >> >> (as Dan did with his recent design doc). >> >> >> >> -Todd >> >> > > >-- >Todd Lipcon >Software Engineer, Cloudera
