Everyone who contributes to Weex should be a committer, yes. We recommend that 2-3 patches is enough for new projects. And most projects have a "low barrier of entry". All contributions beyond simple typos and one/two-liner bug fixes, needs to have an Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the secretary.
I am hopeful you will embrace open development mentality soon enough. One thing at a time... Niclas On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:16 AM, 大诗胸 <[email protected]> wrote: > You mean every body in at least our current develop team should/will have a > 'committer' permission? > I agree with you that CTR is ideal model when our project has 'enough' > eyeballs > and tests. But for now, I'm still worrying about the quality. > > Most of us, including me, have a really bad old habit: Push too much. If > everybody can slow down a little bit, and review the code many times > himself, I think we can switch to CTR. > > I'd like to hear from others, any thoughts about this? > > BTW:There are tons of abbreviation-with-capital-letter need to study... > that's interesting. 😄 > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Yes, that is what people coming from a corporate background normally > think. > > In reality, you now have (potentially) every user watching and approving > > what you are doing, and the number of eyeballs on commits are typically a > > function of the size of user base. This aspect of "open development" can > > seem a bit scary once it strikes home, but as the user base grows, every > > committer tend to be more and more careful. Good testcases will bring you > > more safety against "low-level bugs" than RTC. > > > > I hope it is reconsidered, as RTC is rather rare in ASF for 'develop' > > branches. > > > > If you have ever heard about the "VETO" in ASF, then that is the "counter > > balance" of CTR when a committer is "going rogue", i.e. committing "bad > > stuff" for whatever reason and possibly ruining other people's work. VETO > > should be rare in a healthy community, a bit like a emergency break on a > > train. Read more at; https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > Cheers > > Niclas > > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM, 大诗胸 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here is the reason why we decided do RTC: > > > We wanna make sure every modification is reviewed by another people. > And > > > avoid commit any feature without discuss with teammate. We use this to > > > minimize the low-level bug. We do realize RTC will slow down the > > > development，but we think it will be worth doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Out of curiosity, why is "pull request model", normally called RTC > > > (Review > > > > Then Commit) in ASF legacy terminology? RTC has traditionally been > used > > > for > > > > mature branches, say maintenance release branches (2.1.1, 2.1.2, > 2.1.3) > > > but > > > > for 'development' branch or the new upcoming release, the dominant > > model > > > is > > > > CTR (Commit Then Review). > > > > > > > > We don't disallow RTC, but generally encourage to start as CTR, as we > > > have > > > > found that faster development is possible in CTR. > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts? Is this simply a left over from a > > > corporate/github > > > > environment, or has this been actively decided upon? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Niclas > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:42 PM, 大诗胸 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > New contribute page: https://github.com/apache/ > > incubator-weex/pull/88 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Jinjiang Zhao < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Guys > > > > > > > > > > > > I have written an email to list the things we are > > working-in-progress > > > > > and updated > > > > > > the issue template of alibaba/weex repo to announce that we will > > stop > > > > > > replying new issues any more from the end of this week. > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I could build a page named "how to contribute" on > our > > > > > > website tomorrow. And then add the url to the issue template > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jinjiang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 06, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Jinjiang Zhao <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes as you suspect, some of these PRs are from discussion in > other > > > ways > > > > > > and some of them are from old pieces of work. 50% - 50% I think. > > But > > > > yes > > > > > > it's not OK of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys I have some suggestions: > > > > > > * First we should put more old information here, just like what > > plan > > > we > > > > > > have made or how many issues we are doing with. > > > > > > * Migrate old alibaba/weex issues to apache gradually. > > > > > > * Stop replying new issues in alibaba/weex (at least at a > > appropriate > > > > > time > > > > > > if not from now on). > > > > > > * Encourage Chinese users moving here MORE. > > > > > > * Try to guide more users abroad go to Apache directly (through > > > > Twitter, > > > > > > HackerNews ... I think). > > > > > > * We should pay more attention here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jinjiang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 03, 2017, at 06:29 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Gang, > > > > > > I see a massive amount of work (well done) being done and pull > > > > requested > > > > > > via GitHub. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are these old pieces of work that are pushed now, or is it new > > work? > > > If > > > > > the > > > > > > latter, how does people know what to work on? > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is simply totally independent pieces, driven by > personal > > > > > > interest, BUT I SUSPECT that this is agreed upon at work, on some > > > side > > > > > > channel or otherwise. And that is NOT OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache projects are expected to have discussions on features and > > > fixes > > > > on > > > > > > the mailing list. As the saying goes around here; "If it didn't > > > happen > > > > on > > > > > > the mailing list, it didn't happen!" > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, all communication in GitHub Pull Requests could > > > disappear > > > > > > tomorrow. The project's history would be gone as a result. No > > records > > > > of > > > > > > anything, other than the commit messages. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, everyone, I know this is difficult, especially since most of > > you > > > > are > > > > > > Chinese, probably with limited English fluency. But we need to > get > > > the > > > > > > discussion going HERE... not at work, not on WeChat, not on > Slack, > > > not > > > > on > > > > > > GitHub or any other medium... HERE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for listening > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > > > > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy > > for > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > sospartan > > > > > Phone:13588488290 > > > > > HangZhou > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for > > > Java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > sospartan > > > Phone:13588488290 > > > HangZhou > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for > Java > > > > > > -- > sospartan > Phone:13588488290 > HangZhou > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for Java
