There don't seem to be any more comments at the moment. Sönke, as the thread starter, do you have time to start a VOTE thread today or so? (I probably won't have access to my laptop for a few days)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:57 AM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another version with the reverse arrows added: <https://imgur.com/B5XXzPB> > > As soon as the discussion peters out I'd create another VOTE thread. > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:46 AM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Okay, we overlapped there and Sönkes picture made me realize that I made >> some mistakes in my latest version so I've attached yet another version. >> >> <https://imgur.com/ycvZ1Ho> >> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:35 AM Sönke Liebau >> <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I think now you have me confused :) >>> To me "triage" was the process of evaluating whether or not a ticket >>> has merit and will be moved to accepted, but in your mail it sounds >>> like an alternative name for "patch available". >>> >>> I've drawn up what my understanding of the workflow was so far [1] - >>> but I think that differs from your understanding? >>> >>> Also and unrelated, would we want a jira for every commit? So for one >>> of those minor things that can be directly committed, would I create a >>> jira and tag it with something like "minor" or would I directly create >>> a pull request and prefix that with MINOR: ? >>> >> >> I'm a fan of having a Jira for everything but won't argue if others >> disagree. >> As part of the job we often have to dig into the history for some piece >> of code. Every bit of documentation helps there. >> >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Sönke >>> >>> >>> [1] https://imgur.com/a/V1onkgT >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:16 PM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Understood! >>> > >>> > Well, in that case the proposed Beam workflow[1] is almost exactly >>> what I'd >>> > like with the only exception of the name "In Progress" switched to >>> > "Accepted" >>> > The only other minor thing is "Review needed" which already led to >>> > confusion in this thread and could be called "Triage needed" >>> > >>> > What do others think? >>> > >>> > Lars >>> > >>> > [1] < >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955531/Screen%20Shot%202019-01-19%20at%202.50.32%20PM.png >>> > > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Just waiting on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17628, >>> nothing >>> > > serious. >>> > > >>> > > +1 to Accepted >>> > > Also -1 to "in progress". I've had something like that on many >>> projects, >>> > > never useful. >>> > > >>> > > Kenn >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:30 AM Lars Francke < >>> lars.fran...@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Thanks for the clarification. >>> > > > >>> > > > In which way are you blocked? I don't quite get that yet. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Open question for me are: >>> > > > >>> > > > Accepted vs. Triaged? >>> > > > I'm in favor of Accepted, it's the easier word (for non natives at >>> least) >>> > > > >>> > > > Do we want a state "In progress"? (Asking because the Mesos flow >>> has that >>> > > > which was Senses original suggestion) >>> > > > I'm against it as it's information that can go stale. Attaching a >>> > > patch/PR >>> > > > or commenting is enough in my opinion. >>> > > > >>> > > > Cheers, >>> > > > Lars >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 18:23 Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > Clarification: I am in favor of accepted / not accepted as a >>> state. >>> > > Beam >>> > > > is >>> > > > > just currently using a tag because we are blocked on the issue. >>> In the >>> > > > > shared Jira install, it is also bad that "triaged" "triage" >>> "Triaged" >>> > > are >>> > > > > all separate tags. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Kenn >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:05 AM Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > I concur. >>> > > > > > Not fussy whether we implement triage needed as tag or an extra >>> > > state, >>> > > > > > it's the thought that counts :) >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > It might be more consistent to have it as a state and >>> potentially >>> > > make >>> > > > > > some statistics easier, but that is pure conjecture on my part. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Best, >>> > > > > > Sönke >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:27 PM Lars Francke < >>> lars.fran...@gmail.com >>> > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > this is more complicated than I thought initially :) >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I agree that fewer states is better for understanding and >>> > > > maintenance. >>> > > > > We >>> > > > > > > should definitely have a "state diagram" of our flow on the >>> Wiki. >>> > > We >>> > > > > > > currently have five states. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > * I also like to have the state "Patch available" or more >>> generally >>> > > > > > "Review >>> > > > > > > needed" (noting that Kenneth understands review = triage). I >>> don't >>> > > > > think >>> > > > > > > that Github PR is enough when people submit simple patches >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > * I also like to distinguish triaged from untriaged >>> (accepted vs. >>> > > > > > > unaccepted) issues, whether tag or state based I don't know. >>> Tag is >>> > > > > easy >>> > > > > > to >>> > > > > > > forget, state is implicit so I lean towards that but Kenneth >>> was >>> > > > > against >>> > > > > > it >>> > > > > > > I believe? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > * I'm against a separation of CLOSED and RESOLVED >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > * I don't think we need a REOPENED state. I've never really >>> seen >>> > > the >>> > > > > > point, >>> > > > > > > when we reopen we can just go back to the normal "open" >>> state. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I could live with a workflow like this: >>> > > > > > > TRIAGE NEEDED -> OPEN -> PATCH AVAILABLE -> CLOSED >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > That'd be four states so even one fewer than we have today. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Cheers, >>> > > > > > > Lars >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>> dpav...@apache.org> >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > IMO we need some sort of Patch Available/Review Needed >>> state >>> > > > because >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > presence of PR does not imply of its state and quality. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Open->...validate...->Open(triaged)->... actual >>> work..->Patch >>> > > > > > > > Available->...review... ->Closed. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Patch Available indicates patch is there and it is ready >>> for >>> > > > review, >>> > > > > > it is >>> > > > > > > > in a state when it could be merged. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > What if review fails, then we can use backward transition >>> Patch >>> > > > > > > > Available->Open (cancel patch). >>> > > > > > > > What if PR there has conflicts or outdated. What if >>> contributor >>> > > > > became >>> > > > > > > > unresponsive and don't updater his or her PR. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > PA state or Review Needed state is needed for a number of >>> cases. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Sincerely, >>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov? >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 07:34, Kenneth Knowles < >>> k...@apache.org>: >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:19 PM Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hey all, >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > just to pick this up again, we have a suggestion for a >>> fairly >>> > > > > > simple >>> > > > > > > > > > workflow by Kenn, which I'd like to briefly summarize >>> to >>> > > ensure >>> > > > > > that I >>> > > > > > > > > > understood everything correctly :) >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > The workflow will have three states: >>> > > > > > > > > > Open >>> > > > > > > > > > Review Needed >>> > > > > > > > > > Closed >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Additionally, we have a tag "triaged" that is applied >>> to Open >>> > > > > > tickets >>> > > > > > > > > > when it is decided that they have merit. If during >>> review of >>> > > an >>> > > > > > open >>> > > > > > > > > > ticket it is decided that this is not necessary/not a >>> bug/... >>> > > > > then >>> > > > > > it >>> > > > > > > > > > will be closed instead of receiving the triaged tag. >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > So any work should be done on tickets in the state >>> open with >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > tag >>> > > > > > > > > > "triaged". Once a pull request or a patch is submitted >>> the >>> > > > ticket >>> > > > > > > > > > moves to "review needed". Based on the outcome of the >>> review >>> > > it >>> > > > > > then >>> > > > > > > > > > either moves back to open or to closed when something >>> is >>> > > > > committed. >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Did I get that right, Kenn? >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Almost :-) >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > - What I meant by "Review Needed" was actually "Triage >>> > > Needed". >>> > > > > > This is >>> > > > > > > > > the initial state of all tickets, because users may not >>> know >>> > > > where >>> > > > > > to put >>> > > > > > > > > them or who to ping. >>> > > > > > > > > - Once it is triaged, you move to "Open". >>> > > > > > > > > - When done, goes to "Closed" and you can make a >>> comment about >>> > > > > why, >>> > > > > > or >>> > > > > > > > > Jira has some statuses. >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > The workaround in Beam right now is: >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > - Initial state is "Open", and we subscribe to a "does >>> not >>> > > have >>> > > > > > > > `triaged` >>> > > > > > > > > tag" saved search. (simulates "Needs Triage" state) >>> > > > > > > > > - Once it is looked at, moved to the right component, >>> has >>> > > right >>> > > > > > > > priority, >>> > > > > > > > > pinged right people, add `triaged` tag >>> > > > > > > > > - Close as usual >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > So I just watch for all non-triaged Jiras and all open >>> pull >>> > > > > requests >>> > > > > > in >>> > > > > > > > LRU >>> > > > > > > > > order. >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > We really don't need separate state for noting there is >>> a PR >>> > > > > > available. >>> > > > > > > > If >>> > > > > > > > > you put "[TRAINING-12345] this fixes a thing" in the pull >>> > > request >>> > > > > > title, >>> > > > > > > > it >>> > > > > > > > > links automatically with the named Jira if set up the >>> way most >>> > > > > > projects >>> > > > > > > > > are. You can probably even do an advance Jira search for >>> these >>> > > if >>> > > > > you >>> > > > > > > > > prefer to work in Jira instead of GitHub to find open >>> PRs. >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Kenn >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > > > > Sönke >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:50 PM Sharan Foga < >>> > > sha...@apache.org >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > On 2019/03/04 17:47:33, Dmitriy Pavlov < >>> dpav...@apache.org >>> > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi >>> > > > > > > > > > > > = JIRA workflow >>> > > > > > > > > > > > I've checked JIRA admin interface and there is no >>> option >>> > > to >>> > > > > > edit >>> > > > > > > > > Issue >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Workflow. So I guess only Infra can edit Workflows. >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dimitry >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Yes - I think someone else has shown that we need to >>> > > request >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > change >>> > > > > > > > > > of flow through Infra, so once we agree then we can >>> create >>> > > the >>> > > > > > request. >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK Apache JIRA has a number of pre-defined >>> workflows, >>> > > > and >>> > > > > > > > probably >>> > > > > > > > > > we >>> > > > > > > > > > > > need somehow to point to some option. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > = Wiki pages >>> > > > > > > > > > > > As for the wiki, Confluence has a number of >>> permissions >>> > > to >>> > > > be >>> > > > > > > > defined >>> > > > > > > > > > for >>> > > > > > > > > > > > each user, and I'm not sure Apache wiki has >>> convenient >>> > > > groups >>> > > > > > in >>> > > > > > > > it. >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is a default anonymous user with view access >>> only. I >>> > > > > think >>> > > > > > this >>> > > > > > > > > is >>> > > > > > > > > > a safeguard against spam. As far as I know, I didn't >>> think >>> > > > > setting >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > > user >>> > > > > > > > > > permissions were a problem and I've generally added >>> people >>> > > once >>> > > > > > they >>> > > > > > > > have >>> > > > > > > > > > requested access.( BTW I've added you to the wiki with >>> edit >>> > > > > > access.) >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks >>> > > > > > > > > > > Sharan >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > (P)PMCs, please grant me admin access to the wiki >>> and I >>> > > > could >>> > > > > > > > > > setup/edit >>> > > > > > > > > > > > user permissions. username=dpavlov >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 20:27, Mirko Kämpf < >>> > > > > > mirko.kae...@gmail.com>: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sönke, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I registered and logged in to the Wiki (for >>> adding the >>> > > > > report >>> > > > > > > > > > template) >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > but I can't find the page editor. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any permission issues which give me >>> read-only >>> > > > > > access? >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirko >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 12:04 Uhr schrieb Sönke >>> Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid>: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mirko! >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For me there are three main questions that we >>> should >>> > > > > > consider >>> > > > > > > > > > around >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the workflow. If I am missing something, >>> please shout >>> > > > > out, >>> > > > > > I am >>> > > > > > > > > by >>> > > > > > > > > > no >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means an expert on this! >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Do we want an "accepted" state that means >>> someone >>> > > > > > looked at >>> > > > > > > > > this >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ticket and it has merit and is not just a user >>> > > question >>> > > > > > that is >>> > > > > > > > > > better >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > placed on the mailing list/far too broad/... ? >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Do we want a "reviewable" state? >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Do we want an explicit "closed" state? The >>> current >>> > > > > > workflow >>> > > > > > > > > has >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "resolved" which means something has been >>> committed >>> > > to >>> > > > > > address >>> > > > > > > > > this >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue and now the original reporter should >>> check >>> > > > whether >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > > issue >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself has been fixed and transition the issue >>> to >>> > > > either >>> > > > > > > > "closed" >>> > > > > > > > > > or >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "reopened". >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do like the idea of 1, as it gives us a >>> better >>> > > option >>> > > > > of >>> > > > > > > > > keeping >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > track of whether or not a ticket has been >>> triaged >>> > > > > already. >>> > > > > > If >>> > > > > > > > you >>> > > > > > > > > > have >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time on your hands and want to fix an >>> issue >>> > > > picking >>> > > > > > from >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "accepted" is easier than potentially sifting >>> through >>> > > > 10 >>> > > > > > "open" >>> > > > > > > > > > ones >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > until you find an actionable one. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think 2 is really useful and we should >>> definitely >>> > > > have >>> > > > > > that. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 I'm on the fence about, personally I think >>> if the >>> > > > > commit >>> > > > > > > > > doesn't >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet what the ticket was about then this >>> should have >>> > > > been >>> > > > > > > > > addressed >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > during review. I think this workflow is more >>> suited >>> > > > for a >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > customer-service provider situation where the >>> > > customer >>> > > > > > needs to >>> > > > > > > > > > sign >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > off on a solution. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:38 AM Mirko Kämpf < >>> > > > > > > > > > mirko.kae...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sönke, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the proposal to use a workflow with an >>> > > > explicit >>> > > > > > state >>> > > > > > > > > for >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "reviewable" issues. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I do not know how to set it >>> up or >>> > > how >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > > > request >>> > > > > > > > > > this >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 ---> Mesos Workflow: >>> > > https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 11:33 Uhr schrieb >>> Sönke >>> > > > Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid>: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping to see if really no one has an >>> opinion on >>> > > > > this >>> > > > > > :) >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Sönke >>> Liebau < >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > soenke.lie...@opencore.com> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, apologies, wasn't aware of that. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Default Workflow: >>> https://imgur.com/a/EfKcOfL >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mesos Workflow: >>> https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Lars >>> Francke < >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > lars.fran...@gmail.com >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Mailing list swallows attachments >>> Sönke, can >>> > > > you >>> > > > > > host >>> > > > > > > > > them >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > externally?) >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM Sönke >>> Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our Jira currently is still >>> operating with >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > > > default >>> > > > > > > > > > workflow >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (see >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1_default_workflow.png) which is >>> fairly >>> > > > basic. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I'd like something along >>> the >>> > > lines >>> > > > > of >>> > > > > > > > > > "reviewable" >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "patch available" to symbolize >>> > > > > > > > > < >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%22patch+available%22+to+symbolize&entry=gmail&source=g >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > that this is waiting for >>> > > > > > > > > > someone >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take a look at. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it might be an option to triage >>> > > issues >>> > > > up >>> > > > > > > > front, >>> > > > > > > > > > i.e. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > have >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone look at it and evalua >>> > > > > > > > > < >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+someone+look+at+it+and+evalua&entry=gmail&source=g >>> > > > > > > > >te >>> > > > > > > > > whether this actually is >>> > > > > > > > > > an >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue or >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not appropriate. Granted, this can >>> also be >>> > > > > > covered by >>> > > > > > > > > > closing >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after looking at them, but that >>> misses t >>> > > > > > > > > < >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+after+looking+at+them,+but+that+misses+t&entry=gmail&source=g >>> > > > > > > > >he >>> > > > > > > > > explicit >>> > > > > > > > > > information >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether someone already looked at >>> it, if it >>> > > > is >>> > > > > > still >>> > > > > > > > > > open. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through workflows that other >>> > > projects >>> > > > > > > > adopted, >>> > > > > > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mesos >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workflow closely resembles what I >>> wrote ab >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > < >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+workflow+closely+resembles+what+I+wrote+ab&entry=gmail&source=g >>> > > > > > > > > > >ove >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > (see >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2_mesos_workflow.png) >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through some other projects >>> the >>> > > > "patch >>> > > > > > > > > > available-reop >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > < >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> https://maps.google.com/?q=some+other+projects+the+%22patch+available-reop&entry=gmail&source=g >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > en >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible" workflow seems to be fairly >>> > > common. >>> > > > > A >>> > > > > > lot >>> > > > > > > > of >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variations >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just differ by the way they name the >>> "patch >>> > > > > > > > available" >>> > > > > > > > > > state. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on the route we want to >>> take? >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 >>> <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - >>> Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - >>> > > > > 22880 >>> > > > > > > > > Wedel - >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - >>> Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - >>> > > > 22880 >>> > > > > > > > Wedel - >>> > > > > > > > > > Germany >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 >>> - 22880 >>> > > > > > Wedel - >>> > > > > > > > > > Germany >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > > > > > Partner >>> > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >>> > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 >>> Wedel - >>> > > > > > Germany >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > Sönke Liebau >>> > > > > > Partner >>> > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 >>> > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - >>> Germany >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sönke Liebau >>> Partner >>> Tel. +49 179 7940878 >>> OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany >>> >>
