On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:02PM, Amos B. Elberg wrote: > I think CTR may be a good idea. > > Considering all the excellent efforts to build community by Moon and others, > I can understand why he has experienced the community in the way he > describes. > > My experience, however, has been different. I’m not sure that community > involvement is either as broad, or as deep, as Moon suggests. Silence is not > the same thing as consensus. It seems that active, regular involvement from > outside the PMC is a very small number of people.
CTR doesn't let anyone and his brother to simply commit the code into the VCS.
You still have to be a committer on the project to do. In order for a
committer to bring in your code into the source tree it has to be reviewed and
checked-in from that category.
> I have a PR that has been pending since *August*. It’s the subject of 2
> jira’s, and I’d emailed members of the PMC about it several times. It has
Have you emails the dev@ list?
> an active user base, to whom I provide technical support. It’s been
> presented to Spark (and soon, R) user groups. However, as I understand it no
> member of the PMC has ever downloaded or tried the code. In fact, no member
> of the PMC even looked at the code until the users began tweeting to ask why
> the PR had not been accepted yet.
PMC (actually PPMC) isn't responsible to look at your or anyone else code:
they are all volunteers exactly as you and I are. They can spend their time
anyway they are pleased.
That said, ignoring a contribution for that long isn't helping to grow the
community - that's for sure.
> One of the prerequisites to graduate from incubation is decentralization of
> project governance. For example, it can’t be that all the code, or
> significant code, comes from the PMC. And the PMC members can’t be all or
> mostly co-affiliated with each other.
Actually, it isn't a requirement. Perhaps some one told you this mistakenly,
but it is not. Here's the list of graduation requirements as of today:
https://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
"decentralization of project governance" isn't there and I am not really sure
what it means.
Cos
> At this point, anything that would decentralize the project can only help
> move it toward graduation. In fact, if graduation is a goal, it seems to be
> mandatory.
>
> CTR sounds like it might help.
>
> From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]>
> Reply: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Date: November 27, 2015 at 8:15:50 PM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Trying CTR for the project
>
> Thanks for starting the thread. I was keep an eye on discussion about
> CTR/RTC on the general@incubator.
>
> I saw people think RTC means lack of trust in that discussion. To me that
> is complete nonsense. I can say, RTC trust others more, trust reviewer. So
> I don't agree the "reason" CTR over RTC in the discussion on
> general@incubator.
>
> Importantly, Zeppelin project used to count not only review from committer
> but also review from any contributor. This kind of consensus sharing among
> the community may be lost or weaken when committers start commit in CTR
> fashion.
>
> But what I agree is, CTR can be faster than RTC. That can help speed up the
> development of Zeppelin and that's what I personally really want and can't
> wait.
>
> So, to me, applying CTR for this reason is more than welcome. But I think
> we need some preparation to keep the consensus in the community.
>
> I think building set of guidelines for each components (GUI / Core /
> Interpreter / Notebook Storage / etc) would help. Contribution guide that
> we're discussing on mailing list [1] and "Zeppelin UI design principle" [2]
> could be example, what guidelines trying to do. Community can discuss and
> create/change guidelines.
>
> Once they're settled then I think there will be no big problem applying CTR
> in Zeppelin project. And that means some type of discussion about the code
> is going to be moved from individual pullrequest to guidelines. Which is
> indirect but more scalable way.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/ma4
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61328042
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:05 AM Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > as you might have seen on the general@incubator list, there's a lengthy
> > discussion about benefits of Commit-Then-Review (CTR) development model
> > over
> > Review-Then-Commit (RTC) one.
> >
> > As the project is getting more mature, I would like to start the
> > conversation
> > on what the community think about this sort of thing. If anyone isn't clear
> >
> > about the topic - please chime in and I would be happy to go into as much
> > details as needed. In the meanwhile, here a coupe of links that might help
> >
> > Apache Ignite CTR vs RTC discussion (Ignite is CTR project)
> > http://s.apache.org/wPA
> > Apache Bigtop CTR vs RTC long thread (Bigtop is a CTR project as well)
> > http://is.gd/TgBovX
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cos
> >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
