@Jonathan +1 On 7 July 2017 at 16:48, Jonathan Gallimore <jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some discussion as to what the process might be is probably pretty > fundamental to help decide whether its beneficial to project or not. If the > proposal was to have 20 +1s and a three week minimum voting period, you > might have a different opinion to a process that requires 3 +1s with no > minimum voting period (even if your thoughts were 'heck no' and 'no' > respectively). > > Jon > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > @Andy: discussion is not if the process is easy or not but if it would be > > beneficial to the project. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2017-07-07 16:40 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > > > > > If someone comes up 'after' the Consensus Approval (3+1) with a -1 then > > > they must submit a counter PR, that must also pass the RTC. > > > > > > It's pretty straight forward. > > > > > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:36, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:34, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> RTC is Consensus Approval and does not need 72h, just 3+1 in any > > amount > > > >> of time. > > > >> > > > >> On 7 July 2017 at 16:33, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Those quotes are from Apache. > > > >>> > > > >>> On 7 July 2017 at 16:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> What Mark meant is if we go through a "vote" then we need to > comply > > to > > > >>>> ASF > > > >>>> rules. Otherwise anything is up to the project and not a "vote". > > > >>>> #semantic > > > >>>> ;) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > >>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE > Factory > > > >>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 2017-07-07 16:28 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > > >: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > A release is: > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Majority Approval > > > >>>> > Refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least > three > > > >>>> binding > > > >>>> > +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes - You have to wait 72h. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > On 7 July 2017 at 16:25, Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > This is not a vote for a release, if you get 3+1s within a > > minute > > > >>>> then > > > >>>> > you > > > >>>> > > don't have to wait 72h. It is 'Consensus Approval'. > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Consensus Approval > > > >>>> > > 'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has > > > *completed > > > >>>> > *with > > > >>>> > > at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > On 7 July 2017 at 16:19, Mark Struberg > > <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid > > > > > > > >>>> > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > >> You know how voting works at the ASF? ;) > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> Either have a VOTE - with all it's implciations - or not. > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> LieGrue, > > > >>>> > >> strub > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Am 07.07.2017 um 15:41 schrieb Andy Gumbrecht < > > > >>>> > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > >> >: > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > There's no 72h waiting period? Just 3+1 to commit. I'd even > > be > > > >>>> for a > > > >>>> > >> 2+1. > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > As soon as whatever is decided is counted then the commit > > > >>>> occurs. That > > > >>>> > >> > could be within a few minutes. > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > Andy. > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > On 7 July 2017 at 14:59, Mark Struberg > > > <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > >> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> >> +1 well said, Jeff! > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> LieGrue, > > > >>>> > >> >> strub > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Am 06.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Jeff Genender < > > > >>>> jgenen...@apache.org > > > >>>> > >: > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Lurking on this, I have to underscore what Mark said. > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Andy, you are pretty correct on nearly every point that > you > > > >>>> made. > > > >>>> > But > > > >>>> > >> >> the things stated are more of refining your current > process > > > >>>> rather > > > >>>> > than > > > >>>> > >> >> taking RTC for current committers. You already had RTC > with > > > >>>> PRs from > > > >>>> > >> >> outsiders. If that slipped in, it just means that a > trusted > > > >>>> > committer > > > >>>> > >> >> didn’t do their job. It happens. Breaking a trunk build > > for > > > >>>> a day > > > >>>> > >> (or > > > >>>> > >> >> even a week) is ok. Thats why its trunk. I cannot tell > you > > > >>>> how many > > > >>>> > >> times > > > >>>> > >> >> I have downloaded a project’s trunk and things weren’t > quite > > > >>>> right. > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Relative to what prompted this RTC discussion again, I > > think > > > >>>> things > > > >>>> > >> got > > > >>>> > >> >> emotional and people slipped up afterwards. The beauty of > > all > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> > is > > > >>>> > >> all > > > >>>> > >> >> parties shook hands and made up. Problem was more-or-less > > > >>>> solved and > > > >>>> > >> the > > > >>>> > >> >> project was back on track. > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> IMHO, taking on RTC is punitive. It means that you need > to > > > >>>> reset > > > >>>> > the > > > >>>> > >> >> way you do things because you cannot do it yourselves. Do > > you > > > >>>> think > > > >>>> > >> you > > > >>>> > >> >> are at that point? It didn’t look that way to me… but its > > > >>>> certainly > > > >>>> > >> >> possible based on what is being done behind the scenes. > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Just some food for thought. > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> Jeff > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Andy Gumbrecht < > > > >>>> > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> >> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> The main issue here is that both new and existing > > developers > > > >>>> on the > > > >>>> > >> >> project > > > >>>> > >> >>>> need breathing space in order to thrive and grow. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> The period between releases is for everyone and not just > > the > > > >>>> few. > > > >>>> > It > > > >>>> > >> is > > > >>>> > >> >>>> only 99.99% OK for one or two individuals. Everyone else > > > >>>> seems to > > > >>>> > be > > > >>>> > >> >>>> suffering behind closed doors or in silence, or fighting > > > >>>> constant > > > >>>> > >> >> mobbing > > > >>>> > >> >>>> to the point where 'our' fun project has become too > > tedious > > > >>>> for > > > >>>> > many > > > >>>> > >> >>>> people's free time. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> I'm not going to focus on the reasons behind the > > > "Suffocating > > > >>>> > >> >> development > > > >>>> > >> >>>> environment" thread, only that it was the web 'staging' > > > >>>> environment > > > >>>> > >> used > > > >>>> > >> >>>> for a review, but treated like it was North Korea > > production > > > >>>> > nuclear > > > >>>> > >> >> bomb > > > >>>> > >> >>>> code. It should have been handled better. We found a > > > >>>> resolution the > > > >>>> > >> long > > > >>>> > >> >>>> way round (github web hosting). > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> However, the situation has evolved where existing > > committers > > > >>>> don't > > > >>>> > >> >> discuss, > > > >>>> > >> >>>> create or assign tickets because they are literally > mobbed > > > or > > > >>>> > >> hijacked > > > >>>> > >> >> by > > > >>>> > >> >>>> another committer within minutes. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> That is currently so predictable that it has become a > kind > > > of > > > >>>> > >> un-funny > > > >>>> > >> >> joke > > > >>>> > >> >>>> even outside of our community. Tickets are often created > > > >>>> 'after' a > > > >>>> > >> >> commit > > > >>>> > >> >>>> with a closed status. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> What needs to change is: > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Committers need to be able to take and work on a ticket > in > > > >>>> peace > > > >>>> > over > > > >>>> > >> >>>> several days or even weeks, without being trumped due to > > > >>>> impatience > > > >>>> > >> or > > > >>>> > >> >> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>> notion of 'I know better'. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Many can only dedicate a finite amount of time, but > still > > > >>>> need to > > > >>>> > >> push > > > >>>> > >> >>>> in-progress work regularly - Git makes that easier now. > > The > > > >>>> review > > > >>>> > >> >> process > > > >>>> > >> >>>> should be a fun and helpful thing. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Committers and new contributors should be encouraged to > > take > > > >>>> > tickets. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> At most, impatience should be directed towards > discussion, > > > >>>> > motivation > > > >>>> > >> >> and > > > >>>> > >> >>>> encouragement - It's about team play on a global scale, > > not > > > >>>> 'My way > > > >>>> > >> or > > > >>>> > >> >> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>> highway'. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> It is often not viable to test the whole project for a > > small > > > >>>> change > > > >>>> > >> - It > > > >>>> > >> >>>> takes well over two hours. The buildbot is like our > buzzer > > > >>>> that > > > >>>> > says > > > >>>> > >> >> "fix > > > >>>> > >> >>>> me" - Not revert me, or trash me, or trump me. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Note to self: Why does the word 'trump' feel like it's > > been > > > >>>> > hijacked > > > >>>> > >> by > > > >>>> > >> >>>> someone?... > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> The 'buzzer' should be allowed to ring for a day or two, > > > >>>> again not > > > >>>> > >> >> everyone > > > >>>> > >> >>>> stays up the whole night ready to trash a breaking > commit. > > > >>>> They go > > > >>>> > to > > > >>>> > >> >>>> sleep, get up, go to work, get home, eat... and then > check > > > the > > > >>>> > build > > > >>>> > >> if > > > >>>> > >> >>>> they have time the next day. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> It is OK to break the build. Everyone gets to have a go > at > > > >>>> that and > > > >>>> > >> >> learn > > > >>>> > >> >>>> from it. Over and over. We don't release broken builds, > > only > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> > good > > > >>>> > >> >> ones > > > >>>> > >> >>>> in-between. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Any disagreement at any level goes to a vote. The > majority > > > >>>> wins. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> I think a trial RTC policy can help achieve these goals > as > > > it > > > >>>> > forces > > > >>>> > >> >>>> community involvement - A good thing. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Andy. > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> On 5 July 2017 at 23:02, Jonathan Gallimore < > > > >>>> > >> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> Are you referring to the changes in the "Suffocating > > > >>>> development > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> environment" thread, or something else? In my view, the > > > >>>> patch Andy > > > >>>> > >> >> applied > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> last week had very limited review (1 person), and the > > > revert > > > >>>> had > > > >>>> > no > > > >>>> > >> >> review. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> We've seen contributions come in through GitHub PRs > > (which > > > is > > > >>>> > >> great), > > > >>>> > >> >> but > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> also applied directly to the repository by committers > > > without > > > >>>> > >> further > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> discussion (less great), effectively meaning just 1 > > > reviewer > > > >>>> - I'm > > > >>>> > >> not > > > >>>> > >> >> sure > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> that's really the spirit of RTC. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> Jon > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Mark Struberg > > > >>>> > >> >> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> As far as I recall the original issue was initially > > caused > > > >>>> by > > > >>>> > >> >> applying a > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> PR. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> That means we had this very issue with a commit which > > had > > > >>>> RTC in > > > >>>> > >> >> place. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> Draw your own conclusions... > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> LieGrue, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> strub > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> Am 05.07.2017 um 14:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> : > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> Hmm, let put it in a raw way: can we skip the asf > list > > on > > > >>>> these > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> discussions? Literally means can be use the way > > everybody > > > >>>> uses > > > >>>> > for > > > >>>> > >> >> RTC, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> ie > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> github PRs *only*. If not I don't see the point to > use > > it > > > >>>> since > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> contributors we got are mainly github/jira and I > think > > it > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> > >> natural > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> as a > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> contributor to use these media instead of the list. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> Can we somehow merge the github flow with the mailing > > in > > > a > > > >>>> > >> smoother > > > >>>> > >> >> way > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> than the jira integration - and even make jira > > optional? > > > >>>> If not > > > >>>> > >> I'm > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> pretty > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> sure it doesn't need any more evaluation, if we can > > then > > > >>>> it can > > > >>>> > be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> great > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> benefit from github well known flow. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> To rephrase it to maybe make it even more explicit: > it > > is > > > >>>> not > > > >>>> > >> about > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> making > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> our - as committers - work easier but making > > > contributions > > > >>>> > easier. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | > Blog > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | > > > >>>> JavaEE > > > >>>> > >> Factory > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> 2017-07-05 13:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> : > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> As I see it, while the recent issue with the > > > >>>> documentation was > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> probably > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> trigger for discussing RTC on dev@, I think the > > general > > > >>>> idea > > > >>>> > is > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> actually > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> get more discussion going on around features and > > fixes, > > > >>>> and to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> encourage > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> more interaction in the review process. We are > > > struggling > > > >>>> as a > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> community in > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> that regard. The documentation issue might now be > > > "fixed" > > > >>>> by > > > >>>> > >> using > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> personal > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> html area usage, but I still think RTC is worthy of > > > >>>> > >> consideration. > > > >>>> > >> >> We > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> are > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> seeing some contributions come in from new > > contributors > > > >>>> and we > > > >>>> > >> have > > > >>>> > >> >> an > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> opportunity to nurture them through this discussion > > and > > > >>>> review > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> process. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Incidentally, if we trialled RTC and saw > improvements, > > > >>>> I'd vote > > > >>>> > >> to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> keep > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> it > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> after 3 months and not "safely return back". If we > > don't > > > >>>> see > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> improvements, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> I'd be trying to think of some other ideas to try. I > > > >>>> think we'd > > > >>>> > >> all > > > >>>> > >> >> be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> open > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> to other suggestions as well, but I'm of the view > that > > > if > > > >>>> we > > > >>>> > >> don't > > > >>>> > >> >> try > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> something, then potentially nothing will change. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Jon > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> 2017-07-05 10:00 GMT+02:00 Gurkan Erdogdu < > > > >>>> > >> gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com > > > >>>> > >> >> . > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> invalid>: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Romain>>>>@Gurkan: concretely nothing changed > > > factually > > > >>>> since > > > >>>> > >> we > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> discussed > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> it and concluded we can't pay the overhead at the > > > >>>> moment so > > > >>>> > why > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> pushing > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> it?I looked at the commit history from github ( > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> tomee/graphs/contributors). Only some couple of > > > members > > > >>>> > provide > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> contributions in last couple of years. We need a > > more > > > >>>> > >> >> stable/healthy > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> community to increase the chance of long living > the > > > >>>> project. > > > >>>> > >> You > > > >>>> > >> >> are > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> wrong, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> the reason behind the such discussion is not > related > > > >>>> with > > > >>>> > prod, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> website > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> or > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> project source code. We are looking for some > > > alternative > > > >>>> > >> solution > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> (at > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> least > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> temporarily) because of the mentioned problems. I > > > >>>> suspect > > > >>>> > that > > > >>>> > >> >> this > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> type > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> conflicts may occur in the future again. I am > > pushing > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> > for > > > >>>> > >> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> success > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> and future of Apache TomEE. I am not a PMC member > or > > > >>>> > committer > > > >>>> > >> of > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> TomEE > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> project, but I just wanted to give my comments as > > ASF > > > >>>> member. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Don't think so Gurkan, the problem was really bound > > to > > > >>>> end > > > >>>> > user > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> direct > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> impact and we tackled it with the personal html > area > > > >>>> usage we > > > >>>> > >> need > > > >>>> > >> >> to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> document now. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Regards.Gurkan- > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 10:13:22 AM GMT+3, > > Romain > > > >>>> > >> Manni-Bucau > > > >>>> > >> >> < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> @Gurkan: concretely nothing changed factually > since > > we > > > >>>> > >> discussed > > > >>>> > >> >> it > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> and > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> concluded we can't pay the overhead at the moment > so > > > why > > > >>>> > >> pushing > > > >>>> > >> >> it? > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Concretely the issue was very particular in term > of > > > >>>> process > > > >>>> > >> cause > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> affecting > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> almost directly our "prod" versus our project > source > > > >>>> doesn't > > > >>>> > >> and > > > >>>> > >> >> we > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> can > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> therefore tolerate more latency. And side note > > > >>>> (probably some > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> wording > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> issue > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> but just to make it obvious if not): if it is to > go > > > >>>> back to > > > >>>> > the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> normal > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> process anyway after then we can gain these 3 > months > > > and > > > >>>> > >> already > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> work > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> and we'll do ;). > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | > > > Blog > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > >>>> > >> https://github.com/ > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau> | > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > | > > > >>>> JavaEE > > > >>>> > >> >> Factory > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-07-05 7:28 GMT+02:00 Gurkan Erdogdu < > > > >>>> > >> gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com > > > >>>> > >> >> . > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> invalid>: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi MarkThis is only for fixing the appeared (very > > > >>>> important) > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> problem > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> in > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the community. So, I don't see what will happen > to > > > the > > > >>>> > project > > > >>>> > >> >> in 3 > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> months > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> period with RTC process? So, at least 3 months, > > every > > > >>>> commit > > > >>>> > >> will > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> approved by the community via consensus. After > > that, > > > >>>> we can > > > >>>> > >> >> safely > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> return > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> back to the normal process. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.Gurkan > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 1:15:31 AM GMT+3, > Mark > > > >>>> Struberg > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> RTC in my experience _only_ works on release > > > branches, > > > >>>> but > > > >>>> > is > > > >>>> > >> a > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> total > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> community killer on the mainstream branch > (master, > > > dev, > > > >>>> > >> whatever > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> you > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> call > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it). > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> We usually don't have so many concurrent commits > on > > > >>>> the same > > > >>>> > >> >> topic. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> There > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> was recently an exceptional case and it got > > resolved. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thus -1 > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course discussions might be done first. But > not > > > via > > > >>>> PR > > > >>>> > but > > > >>>> > >> via > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> mail. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Usually the devs have a good feeling about what > is > > > >>>> sensible > > > >>>> > >> and > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> what > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> not. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> For some deep change one usually sends a patch > > first > > > >>>> for > > > >>>> > >> review. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> That > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> nothing we need to enforce - every good > programmer > > > >>>> will do > > > >>>> > >> just > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> that! > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Otoh there are 99.99% of stuff which you just get > > > done > > > >>>> and > > > >>>> > >> commit > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> it. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> And > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> if there is something fishy, then it get's caught > > via > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> > >> commit > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> log > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> mails > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> anyway. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> LieGrue, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> strub > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2017 um 10:05 schrieb Jonathan > Gallimore > > < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:04 AM, David Blevins < > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> david.blev...@gmail.com > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s a discussion on the private list on > this > > > >>>> topic, > > > >>>> > but > > > >>>> > >> >> given > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> recent thread I think it makes sense to move > that > > > >>>> here. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote would be only on this question: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Is RTC worth trying for 3 months? > (+1,+/-0,-1) > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve seen some voices in favor, but do not want > > to > > > >>>> > propose a > > > >>>> > >> >> vote > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> without a heads-up. Specifically, even if many > > > >>>> people > > > >>>> > like > > > >>>> > >> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> idea > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we should talk about how we want to do it. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # Review-than-commit > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For those that do not know, Review-than-commit > is > > > >>>> > >> essentially > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> what > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Github Pull Requests are. Prior to github, > > Apache > > > >>>> > describes > > > >>>> > >> >> them > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> as: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Commit policy which requires that all changes > > > >>>> receive > > > >>>> > >> >> consensus > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> approval in order to be committed. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we’ve seen evidence that: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Slowing ourselves down can be a good thing. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Moving ahead after discussion is a good > thing. > > > >>>> > Discussion > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> should > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> precede even the first commit. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - More eyes and talk around commits can help > > > >>>> documentation > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> efforts. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - As 3 +1s are required, a one-to-one > > conversation > > > >>>> with no > > > >>>> > >> one > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> else > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> included is naturally discouraged. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # Trial basis > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My thought is to go RTC for 3 months as a > trial. > > > >>>> After 3 > > > >>>> > >> >> months, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> no > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> action means we revert back to our present CTR. > > A > > > >>>> new > > > >>>> > vote > > > >>>> > >> >> would > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> required to continue RTC in any form, as-was or > > > >>>> modified. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless its obviously unanimous that everyone > > > dislikes > > > >>>> RTC > > > >>>> > at > > > >>>> > >> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> end > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> of 3 > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> months, I'd suggest we call a vote to decide how > > to > > > >>>> > proceed. > > > >>>> > >> Not > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> quite > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> sure > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> how that fits into +1/0/-1 however, so may be it > > > >>>> should be > > > >>>> > a > > > >>>> > >> 3 > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> month > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> trial, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> followed by 2 weeks for review and discussion > > > (during > > > >>>> which > > > >>>> > >> we'd > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> still > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> RTC) and then a vote? > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The trial-basis is to acknowledge that we are > > > voting > > > >>>> on a > > > >>>> > >> guess > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> of > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> potential benefits. This allows us to "try > > before > > > >>>> we buy" > > > >>>> > >> and > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> the > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vote really comes down to if we want to try. > We > > > >>>> need not > > > >>>> > >> make > > > >>>> > >> >> a > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision based on other people's experience and > > > have > > > >>>> a > > > >>>> > >> means to > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> gain > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> our own experience with a built-in escape > clause > > > that > > > >>>> > >> triggers > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> lazily. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RTC may sound like a good idea, but our > > > implemention > > > >>>> of it > > > >>>> > >> may > > > >>>> > >> >> be > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> bad > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in practise. It may sound like a bad idea, but > > we > > > >>>> may > > > >>>> > >> discover > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> positives we hadn't anticipated. We don't > > > currently > > > >>>> know. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # How would we do it? > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some things that would be good to discuss: > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - How could we use github pull requests? Other > > > >>>> > communities > > > >>>> > >> do > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> use > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> them and I suspect there are options we have > not > > > >>>> explored. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be in favour of that, as that process seems > to > > > be > > > >>>> very > > > >>>> > >> well > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> known. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Should all reviews be on the dev list? With > > > Github > > > >>>> PRs > > > >>>> > >> >> comments > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and JIRA comments, there needs to be a source > of > > > >>>> truth. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think both the discussion and review should > > happen > > > >>>> on the > > > >>>> > >> dev > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> list. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GH/JIRA comments are fine in themselves, but > there > > > >>>> may be > > > >>>> > >> >> (should > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> be) > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on dev@ before a PR is opened, so > > having > > > >>>> all > > > >>>> > that > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> discussion > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> one place is important for me. Even if GH > comments > > > >>>> prove > > > >>>> > >> >> popular, > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> its > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> hard to copy/paste it to dev@ with a link. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Should we fully document the process before > we > > > try > > > >>>> so we > > > >>>> > >> can > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> get > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the most value from a 3 month trial? > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be in favour of discussing and documenting. > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Blevins > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > >> >>>> -- > > > >>>> > >> >>>> Andy Gumbrecht > > > >>>> > >> >>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >>>> > >> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > -- > > > >>>> > >> > Andy Gumbrecht > > > >>>> > >> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >>>> > >> > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > -- > > > >>>> > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > >>>> > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >>>> > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > -- > > > >>>> > Andy Gumbrecht > > > >>>> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >>>> > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Andy Gumbrecht > > > >>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Andy Gumbrecht > > > >> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com
