So I'm not responding directly to this mail but I wanted to post an update,
as it were, for those paying attention. As you see I wrote a bunch of things
which I was feeling about the process by which contributors get code merged
into parts of XWiki.
After that I had a nice conversation with Edy about these feelings and how
things work and how things could maybe work better and maybe the pressures
which he experiences as a committer.
I wear three hats, I'm a committer, a contributor and a user. Maybe as a user
I (and we) push too hard for committers to ship a bug-free release every
time and this feeds a nervousness about accepting contributions. I'm not much
for Christmas but a little understanding is a gift that keeps on giving.
Now Edy was very graceious and decided to accept all of our pull requests.
Not only that, he volunteered that Yann and I should be in charge of his
repository while he is gone on holidays, a token of trust which I mean to
care for seriously.
Now I want to be vigilant against the narrative that this was some kind of a
negotiation or a battle that we "won". What Edy and I talked about, and what
I want more than this one particular deadline, is that we the users, the
contributors and the committers all have a little more understanding for one
another. One might say we are defined by how often we invoke The Rules toward
one another.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 18/12/15 13:28, vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi Yann,
On 18 Dec 2015 at 11:45:25, Yann Flory
(yann.fl...@xwiki.com(mailto:yann.fl...@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi all,
First, I'm sorry Edy if I'm not able to produce the quality level you
expect.
I wanted initially to have only one issue fixed in that PR but I pushed two
new commits in my fork and I didn't realized it was on the same branch, and
so GitHub automatically updated the PR. It was not intended. I'm not sure
though that it was necessary to have 4 or 5 comments about that in the PR.
I'd like to contribute following the best practices but, as Caleb
explained, we have deadlines and we have to be sure it will allow us to
release the new version in time (meaning we'd like to agree on the
acceptable quality level). Otherwise, we'll have to remove some features of
the Web IDE.
Finally, from my point of view, I know it isn't true but it's a bit strange
to make a proposal about moving it into xwiki-platform and work on the
extension yourself, in this thread while we are trying to contribute and
make some changes.
<answering just this point because I was the one who did that>
I put it in a different thread. They’re related topics but with very different
timelines (yours is now, the move is several weeks/months away probably).
The reason I started the other thread now was precisely because this thread was
talking about deciding where to locate code and I wanted to give the visibility
that the idea was to move that extension in platform (it has always been the
goal), since if this is approved if removes the burden of having to find a new
location and it makes more sense for now to contribute the new module inside
the same repo/jira.
The other reason was actually to help you :) When code is in xwiki-platform it
means that the XWiki Core devs are supporting it (right now the syntax
highlighting and autocompletion extensions are not supported, they were coded a
few times during hackathons in people's free time). Since the WebIDE is a user
of those extensions, the WebIDE will benefit from having supported extensions
in the future.
Regarding contributing, I don’t think that doing a PR in xwiki-contrib or in
xwiki-platform will change that much.
Hope this makes it clear. I’m sorry that you viewed it negatively when my
reason was actually the opposite… More globally I’m sorry that we were not able
to handle this all more constructively.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Yann
Cet
e-mail a été envoyé depuis un ordinateur protégé par Avast.
www.avast.com
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:36 AM, vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi Caleb and Edy,
On 18 Dec 2015 at 09:02:17, Caleb James DeLisle (c...@cjdns.fr(mailto:
c...@cjdns.fr)) wrote:
Hey Edy,
Thanks for your point of view on this. I understand that you're feeling
like
I'm attacking you or applying pressure, I think this is a reasonable
feeling
because what I'm asking is something that has not been asked before.
Please though be very careful to read my words only exactly as they are.
You refer to pressure which I applied offline but if you look at the
exact words
I said, I was asking "when will it be reviewed?", because I have to plan
around
a deadline. I fully understand your mistaking that for a mix of words
intended
to make you work quickly, we all mix these up, it's part of being human.
The sad
result of this is you feel you've complied to pressure and I only needed
the
answer to a question so I could plan.
On the topic of quality, I understand your position but please also
understand
mine, I personally maintain a significant size software project, I know
there
are things which are unacceptable. I also know a lot of things which
could be
better but I will accept them anyway (often with a suggestion to improve
for
next time). I feel a little bit insulted that my judgement is not
considered
good enough for your extension, or that I am not trusted to clean up if
I make
a mess and things actually break.
Just on this point, if someone should feel insulted it’s Yann I guess :)
As I mentioned in a previous email, I’d really like if Yann could tell us
how he’d like to proceed (since he’s the one coding and doing the PRs
afterall) and if there’s anything that bothers him with the way his PRs
have been handled (and that we should improve).
Regarding yourself Caleb, we (other core committers) obviously trust you a
lot, this is why you’re a core committer :)
More generally: Could everyone please stop feeling insulted and could we
work together in a nice way, using nice words to each others? :) We’re all
in the same boat after all and we’re all driving to making the XWiki
ecosystem better. Let’s work better together :) (private joke intended).
And Merry Christmas to all!
Thanks
-Vincent
What this all boils down to in the end is I am against a deadline with 3
choices:
1. Fork your extension and re-package it into the WebIDE
2. Lose the SyntaxHighlighting feature in order to ship
3. Make a PR and hope for the best, possibly v0.12 of WebIDE will not be
releasable.
I hate 1 and 2, I want so much to do 3 but I need some assurance that
you will
understand my situation and be willing to share the decision making
about acceptable
quality level.
Is this something we can do ?
Caleb
On 17/12/15 17:35, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Caleb,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
also be available to the application, on release. If we desynchronize
them, the application will most likely be left behind.
I interpret your words to mean: we want to keep them merged in order
to
conscript any contributors (meaning us) into doing additional
maintanence.
Let me be clear.
We have until Christmas to work on this and after that we will be
done.
If we are held up because you want to block us until we do other
things, I
feel that we are being abused and extorted for work.
More concretely, if this involves any kind of discussion or
back-and-forth
which lasts until Christmas, we will simply miss our objective and not
solve our objectives.
* We can split this into 2 extensions as we discussed, I am willing to
proceed with the same repository/JIRA.
* We can test the result and verify that there are no changes to the
frontend version for the user.
* We cannot do this within the given time requirement as long as
there is
NO BIKESHEDDING.
** An example of bikeshedding is here:
https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/wiki-editor-devtools/pull/3
** What makes it bikeshedding is the fact that the complaints are
about
process or "a better way to do it", not code which is seriously
dangerous
to accept.
I want to collaborate on this, what I don't want is to be in a
gatekeeper
relationship in 1 week and then fail at my objective because of that.
Please let me know if this is ok for you.
Thanks,
Caleb
I am sorry you feel that way.
Let me start of by saying that I, personally, felt insulted by your
attitude.
On the particular case of
https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/wiki-editor-devtools/pull/3 , after
your
continuous pressure in an offline discussion, I dropped whatever I was
working on at the time and made time to review the PR that you have
mentioned. As mentioned in the review, there were 3 issues jammed into
one
single PR, there were individual aspects to fix for each issue and yes,
there was code that was seriously dangerous to accept, as it would
destabilize the feature and introduce bugs (like the disabling of the
editor approach). If all you saw from that review was "bikeshedding",
then
perhaps I waisted my time.
Of course I understand the frustration of going back and forward in a
PR
review. However, you must also understand that the same frustration
applies
to the reviewer as well. Out of curiosity, I did a Google search on the
topic of how others use PRs (as project owners) and came up with this
interesting study[1]. Scanning through it reveals that others have the
same
issues in finding the time to review PRs, that they value greatly the
quality of the contribution and maintaining the quality of the
project's
code after the contribution is accepted. Other interesting facts can be
observed in that report, but what I get from it is that it's not
trivial to
maintain a project and bashing someone for taking the time to help you
is
plain rude.
Another thing I don`t understand is why you consider this to be an
unilateral thing, i.e. the fault/job of the maintainer. There are
numerous
guides (ex. [2] - just read the headings) in how to do
contributions/Pull
Requests. They all boil down to a simple principle: The more you
complicate
the life of the reviewer (with a messy PR), the longer it will take for
that PR to be applied (back and forward discussions on things that
need to
be fixed).
Going down the rabbit hole, I also noticed this interesting article[3]
on
how GitHub's "Merge Pull Request" button is considered "harmful". It
discusses exactly this friction/frustration that rises from back and
forwards discussions on a PR until the quality of the contribution
reaches
an acceptable level. The way GitHub drives the contribution flow is
that
the contributor is the one responsible for ensuring that his
contribution
respects the guidelines and policies of the project and that the
quality is
good; the reviewer is simply a referee that gives the green light when
all
is good. The article seems to suggests that the reviewer goes beyond
the
referee status and also starts fixing the
(code/style/documentation/etc.)
problems of the contribution, finally applying it, thus giving credit
to
the contributor. It is an interesting approach and, as far as I can
understand from your message, is something that you would like very
much,
unfortunately I don`t see it as being realistic, since a project's
maintainers can usually be counted on one hard and the workload
required
for such an approach does not leave room for other things in the
life/day-job of the maintainer. The "abuse", "extortion",
"conscription"
and "additional maintenance" you were mentioning above would only be
shifted on the shoulders of the project maintainer because of the lack
of
quality in the contribution he has just blindly accepted.
You have to understand that nobody is trying to sabotage your
schedules and
that any problem can be resolved by discussing it, not by giving
ultimatums.
Thanks,
Eduard
----------
[1]
http://gousios.gr/blog/How-do-project-owners-use-pull-requests-on-Github/
[2] http://blog.ploeh.dk/2015/01/15/10-tips-for-better-pull-requests/
[3]
http://blog.spreedly.com/2014/06/24/merge-pull-request-considered-harmful/#.VnLKabzIphE
On 17/12/15 09:25, vinc...@massol.net wrote:
I agree with Edy that it’s better to release them together: *
Simplifies
a lot the matrix compatibility tests * Ensure they’re in sync *
Simplify
release processes
Thanks -Vincent On 16 Dec 2015 at 19:01:38, Eduard Moraru (
enygma2...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi Caleb,
(just saw your reply)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Caleb James DeLisle
wrote:
They're going to have distinct release cycles
This is exactly what I hope to avoid by not separating the code from
the
application. This way, whatever improvements you bring to the code,
will
also be available to the application, on release. If we
desynchronize them,
the application will most likely be left behind.
Also, it will give you a way be constantly reminded that the code
module
is used by other projects as well, and should remain generic enough
and, at
the same time, it will not bring any overload since the application
itself
is extremely basic to maintain.
Thanks, Eduard
so I think the least ugly thing to do is have 2 projects.
Thanks, Caleb
On 16/12/15 17:12, vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On 16 Dec 2015 at 16:56:57, Yann Flory (yann.fl...@xwiki.com
(mailto:
yann.fl...@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hello devs,
In order to be able to use the CodeMirror editor in other
extensions,
we'd like to split the Syntax Highlighting application in two
parts (Cf
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/WIKIEDITOR-37) A new extension,
Syntax
Highlighting UI Module, would be created and it would provides
the ability
to transform a given textarea into a CodeMirror editor. The
current
extension would keep the part which detect all textareas in
'edit' mode and
transform them into CodeMirror editors (with a dependency on
the new extension). If this is accepted, we'll need a new Jira
project
for the module.
Note: We create a jira project per repo, I don’t think we need 2
jira
projects. We could have 2 jira “components” though.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs@xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs@xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
