Agree. I suppose that more talks should happen in dev@ mail list to follow the Apache Way, not only creating Jira issues.
There’s a historical reason for Weex not adopting mail list quite well for now. Before incubated in Apache, Weex is acknowledged by its community (especially in China) after its open source announcement, and some discussion channels like QQ / WeChat / DingDing have already been established and gathered many Weex developers & users since then. I believe Weex committers try to steer discussions to mail list but perhaps it takes time to inform every Weex developer to aware this change and switch their discussions language from Chinese to English. Anyway, I believe committers will try their best to keep the discussions transparent and public, and people will tend to discuss in dev@ as soon as they feel the discussion is continuously and responsive. Cheers, Jonathan Dong On 1 Dec 2017, 12:23 AM +0800, Adam Feng , wrote: Hi, Niclas It's good to see you still here. We've learnt so much from you about Apache Way，it is also true that we still need guidance. Last month we had a discussion[1] on roadmap for community building and we deviced to improve our workflow and documentation first. We have finished the documents for "How to Contribute"[2] and "Development Process"[3]. Generally, Weex uses JIRA Issue to track all types of code changes and not just bug fixes, and uses Github pull requests to manage the review and merge of specific code changes. That is, JIRAs are used to describe what should be fixed or changed, and high-level approaches, and pull requests describe how to implement that change in the project’s source code. Be sure to search the issues before creating new ones to avoid duplication. If your change may be controversial, you may want to create a discussion in the weex-dev mailing list. Every pull request should correspond to a issue in JIRA. We want to track all types of code changes in JIRA issues to make our development process more openness and transparency. Contributors are not simply creating issues and commiting code, they will have discussions in pull requests, which will be sent to the mailing list([4] is a good example). And for dev@ mailing list, I just reviewed all the mails(excluding JIRA issues) in Oct. and Nov. [5]， actually more discussions were made than that in Aug. and Sep.. Some of the discussions are about important decisions such as whether to use Github issues, how to develop plugins conveniently, how to replace Facebook/Yoga, whether to create a project channel, etc. More and more non-alibaba and non-Chinese guys were participating in the discussions. Still and all, this is not enough, as you said, some discussions are still done elsewhere, openness and diversity are important to Weex, we should continue our work in open communication and decision making. Looking forward to your insight. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-weex-dev/201710.mbox/%3C3dbd5926-efda-4d39-866f-9995602ba009%40Spark%3E[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex-site/blob/master/source/contributing.md[3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex-site/blob/master/source/development-process.md[4] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex/pull/918#pullrequestreview-80162812[5]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-weex-dev/201710.mbox/date Thanks.Adam Feng On 29 Nov 2017, 1:11 PM +0800, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]>, wrote: IMHO, Weex is drifting away from the Apache Way at the moment. Less and less discussion is seen in dev@, and simply Jira issues pop up from seemingly no where, which is an indicator that discussions are done elsewhere. I simply doubt that everyone is working in isolation and creating/commenting Jiras and nothing else. Comments? Niclas On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Tiago Alves <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I understand your perspective and accept your position. The mail list must be the official channel, and everything important should go through there. Maybe later we can go back to this idea. I still think that a Slack or Gitter channel, if properly supervised, would even help the mailing list. For example, I started writing in the mailing list because Hanks pushed me to do so in the gitter channel. The problem with unofficial channels is that they are not listed in the official website... Cheers! Tiago On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 01:54 Adam Feng <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Tiago Thanks for you suggestion. As Raphael said, chat is only the second communications tool at ASF, the problem for us before was chatting too much(in some Chinese chat tools), now we should first make our mailing list active enough. I think unofficial chat channels are fine, but I suggest bring all the developers to mailing list first and not create any official channel for now. Thanks. Adam Feng On 7 Nov 2017, 5:52 AM +0800, wrote: Hi Tiago No, we have no problem with proprietary channels, as long the main discussions are on the Mailing lists. There are several projects using Slack, others uses HipChat. Just keep in mind, chat it's only the second communications tool at ASF. As you wrote, for quick questions, etc. But I like chat too in some case. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
