Agreed. We have been keeping all project and design discussions to dev@ mailing lists and that's still is the case. If something about the recent PR needs to be discussed, please feel free to start the convo on dev@.
Hope that clarifies everything now and I would like to conclude this thread. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote: > Asf git mirrors github comments to jira and to dev list. There have been no > discussions on the slack about the code other than announce of the PR > itself (which jira and dev do as well). Discussion time was allowed the > usual time, 5 business says or so. The bulking up of contributions is > unfortunate artifact of bureacracy at big corporations, process no one can > affect. Contributions under corporate cla go thru internal review for > months, after which they cannot be changed. > On Jun 18, 2015 6:54 AM, "Suneel Marthi" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
