Agreed. The Spark project and community that Vinod describes do not resemble the ones with which I am familiar.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > Thanks for you thoughts - However, I do not agree with your sentiment > and implications. Spark is broadly quite an inclusive project and we > spend a lot of effort culturally to help make newcomers feel welcome. > > - Patrick > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Actually what this community got away with is pretty much an > anti-pattern compared to every other Apache project I have seen. And may I > say in a not so Apache way. > > > > Waiting for a committer to assign a patch to someone leaves it as a > privilege to a committer. Not alluding to anything fishy in practice, but > this also leaves a lot of open ground for self-interest. Committers > defining notions of good fit / level of experience do not work, highly > subjective and lead to group control. > > > > In terms of semantics, here is what most other projects (dare I say > every Apache project?) that I have seen do > > - A new contributor comes in who is not yet added to the JIRA project. > He/she requests one of the project's JIRA admins to add him/her. > > - After that, he or she is free to assign tickets to themselves. > > - What this means > > -- Assigning a ticket to oneself is a signal to the rest of the > community that he/she is actively working on the said patch. > > -- If multiple contributors want to work on the same patch, it needs > to resolved amicably through open communication. On JIRA, or on mailing > lists. Not by the whim of a committer. > > - Common issues > > -- Land grabbing: Other contributors can nudge him/her in case of > inactivity and take them over. Again, amicably instead of a committer > making subjective decisions. > > -- Progress stalling: One contributor assigns the ticket to > himself/herself is actively debating but with no real code/docs > contribution or with any real intention of making progress. Here workable, > reviewable code for review usually wins. > > > > Assigning patches is not a privilege. Contributors at Apache are a bunch > of volunteers, the PMC should let volunteers contribute as they see fit. We > do not assign work at Apache. > > > > +Vinod > > > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> One over arching issue is that it's pretty unclear what "Assigned to > >> X" in JIAR means from a process perspective. Personally I actually > >> feel it's better for this to be more historical - i.e. who ended up > >> submitting a patch for this feature that was merged - rather than > >> creating an exclusive reservation for a particular user to work on > >> something. > >> > >> If an issue is "assigned" to person X, but some other person Y submits > >> a great patch for it, I think we have some obligation to Spark users > >> and to the community to merge the better patch. So the idea of > >> reserving the right to add a feature, it just seems overall off to me. > >> IMO, its fine if multiple people want to submit competing patches for > >> something, provided everyone comments on JIRA saying they are > >> intending to submit a patch, and everyone understands there is > >> duplicate effort. So commenting with an intention to submit a patch, > >> IMO seems like the healthiest workflow since it is non exclusive. > >> > >> To me the main benefit of "assigning" something ahead of time is if > >> you have a committer that really wants to see someone specific work on > >> a patch, it just acts as a strong signal that there is someone > >> endorsed to work on that patch. That doesn't mean no one else can > >> submit a patch, but it is IMO more of a warning that there may be > >> existing work which is likely to be high quality, to avoid duplicated > >> effort. > >> > >> When it was really easy to assign features to themselves, I saw a lot > >> of anti-patterns in the community that seemed unhealthy, specifically: > >> > >> - It was really unclear what it means semantically if someone is > >> assigned to a JIRA. > >> - People assign JIRA's to themselves that aren't a good fit, given the > >> authors level of experience. > >> - People expect if they assign JIRA's to themselves that others won't > >> submit patches, and become upset if they do. > >> - People are discouraged from working on a patch because someone else > >> was officially assigned. > >> > >> - Patrick > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >>> Anecdotally, there are a number of people asking to set the Assignee > >>> field. This is currently restricted to Committers in JIRA. I know the > >>> logic was to prevent people from Assigning a JIRA and then leaving it; > >>> it also matters a bit for questions of "credit". > >>> > >>> Still I wonder if it's best to just let people go ahead and set it, as > >>> the lesser "evil". People can already do a lot like resolve JIRAs and > >>> set shepherd and critical priority and all that. > >>> > >>> I think the intent was to let "Developers" set this, but maybe due to > >>> an error, that's not how the current JIRA permission is implemented. > >>> > >>> I ask because I'm about to ping INFRA to update our scheme. > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
