While I agree that most of the project and design discussions need to be confined to dev@ mailing lists and we have been abiding by that norm and not resorting to private slack channels. The PR that's in question has been in Skunkworks for a while and has only recently been pushed to the public codebase. This PR has been open for a while now and there's been enuf comments and feedback on the PR.
The JIRAs corresponding to the PR could have done with a comment something like "Fixed by PR#XX", something we have been doing always and should be cognizant of going forward. Given that we r now officially using Github, most of the comments and discussions happen on the PR itself and would be reflected on the JIRA, there is no need to repeat the conversation on the mailing lists again. I guess this discussion stems from the fact that the recent 5K lines PR is tied to some 20+ JIRAs that were created for it and yet the comments on the PR are not reflected in any of the JIRAs. I agree that this shouldn't be happening, but this specific PR is from Skunkworks that's been pending clearance from the contributor's corporate legal for over 6 months now and has only been growing in size while pending clearance from corporate legals. This is a one off exception and shouldn't happen going forward as most committers are now past their respective corporate legal hurdles and have clearances. About Slack: We have been using slack to coordinate release process when its easier to have the team together and schedule hangouts. Most of the design and project discussions still happen on dev@, an example being the recent Cholesky Decomposition and Spark Shell enhancements. Slack is only being used to bring the team together to better coordinate release process and nothing more. Yes, there are exceptions when we do discuss things on slack but that's usually stuff that's of little or no interest to the general public and is not project specific. The intent here is definitely not to become an 'Openly Closed' project. If there's a question about the PR itself, please feel free to start the discussion on dev@. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Andrew Musselman < [email protected]> wrote: > Do you think PR comments are relevant discussions? Again, what is the > allowance/guidance from the ASF for them, now that Github is officially > approved/advised. > > I suggest it's worth raising to the larger ASF community for comment and > adaptation. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Sebastian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The ASF mandates that all relevant discussions happen on the mailinglist. > > > > Best, > > Sebastian > > > > > > On 18.06.2015 10:44, Andrew Musselman wrote: > > > >> What do you mean no-go, that there's no reasonable way to incorporate > >> discussion from other channels to the list? > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Sebastian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Having these discussions in a non-public environment prevents all > >>> non-invited people (e.g. all non-committers) from participating in the > >>> development. I think this is a huge no-go. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Sebastian > >>> > >>> > >>> On 18.06.2015 09:43, Ted Dunning wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Andrew Musselman < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Capturing discussion in a public format and archiving the discussion > >>>> > >>>>> would > >>>>> be preferable to fragmenting across lists, PR comments, and Slack, > but > >>>>> the > >>>>> tools are all valuable, and until we find a way to build a digest for > >>>>> the > >>>>> archives I support using them all. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, capturing the design discussion on the list is not just > >>>> preferable. > >>>> > >>>> It is required. > >>>> > >>>> Using alternative tools is fine and all, but not if it compromises > that > >>>> core requirement. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> >
