The current IRC time slot is not compatible with my family. I normally try to ensure somebody who can attend is willing to represent my PoV when I know there is an issue I feel strongly about
On Monday 21 December 2015, Kanstantsin Shautsou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:58:34 AM UTC+3, Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >> If we are going to go down the road of forbidding direct committing to >> master and forcing people to go through PRs (let's assume we can find a way >> to let release commits go through) we'd need a better criteria for when we >> can actually merge PRs. >> >> I see lots of PRs languishing for ages with disagreement over what to do >> and no clear outcome one way or the other... >> >> We have 25 PRs that are older than Jun 1st 2014... >> >> 50 PRs that are at least 1 year old >> > + i closed all my >1 year old PRs when realised that 2.0 will be cosmetic. > >> >> 75 PRs that are 6 months or older >> >> Now KS, it's not CloudBees place to decide what the community wants to >> have merged... the community has not defined how to address these PRs... >> >> If we are to move to PRs without direct commit then I want to see a >> defined process whereby no PR goes more than say 1 month without the >> community deciding if it is a Go / No Go on the general idea. >> >> I am quite sure that CloudBees would be willing to help get PRs into a >> better state for merging if we knew that those PRs were the direction the >> community wanted to go. Right now we seem to end up saying "ok this is what >> we think, here's our contribution, do you want it?" and there is no >> movement further... after a while we then remove our CloudBees hat and don >> our core contributors hat and say something like "ah for jebus's sake, >> nobody else has expressed an opinion either way for the past 2-3 weeks, >> let's just merge it" but don't for one second think that we like doing this. >> > Do you really think that community has enough core devs not already hired > by CB? I have problem with classloading and only 3 guys (you are one of) > may have answer, all in CB. > >> >> I would say that the community needs to show interest in PRs before we >> can switch to a PR model as the route for change. >> > PR instead direct commit at least provides chance to get review, i think > you are expecting review in PRs and not in master tree. Such review already > happens, i.e. Daniel provides comments in all PRs. > >> >> My suggestion is that when a PR has been open for a week or so, the >> community should start a vote thread to decide if the change is the right >> direction (Go) or the wrong direction (No Go). >> > I may say that if it was open for 1 week, then community had enough time > for review. Obviously CB relies on ability merging their payed changes > faster and somebody may kick you for such blocker proposals :-) > >> If No Go then close the PR providing the reason... if Go then the PR >> author can be helped to get the PR to a mergeable quality and then we merge >> the change and move forward. >> > And if it doesn't fit into current 1.x, then wait for 10 years to get > ability (One of my first contributions > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/902#issuecomment-134412342 ) > After CB hiring not all changes can be reviewed i.e. fundamental > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/1936#issuecomment-162191335. Of > course there was no objections for merge. > >> >> If that process gets all the open PRs down such that most PRs are open >> for no more than 1 month, then and only then would I say that preventing >> direct core commits might be worth pursuing... >> > In PRs you may have degree of go asap/wait for community, while in direct > commits there is nothing than "don't care". > >> Just my €0.02 >> >> -Stephen >> > Stephen, btw, could you attend meetings on IRC? > >> >> On 20 December 2015 at 17:22, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So, addressing a few aspects of this thread: >>> >>> - I'd strongly oppose ICLA/push permission revocation for pushing >>> directly to master. That's overly harsh. >>> - I do support this policy overall - I'm personally a big fan of a >>> "Review then Commit" policy. >>> - There is a caveat/exception, of course - release-related commits. >>> >>> I think this is worth proposing for the next meeting - Kostya, could you >>> add it to the agenda on the wiki? There's no need to name-and-shame >>> specific cases of people pushing directly to master - this is a worthwhile >>> policy to advocate even if no one was actually breaking it at this point. >>> >>> A. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Kanstantsin Shautsou < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 17:32, Baptiste Mathus <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 with all Oleg said... >>>> The subject might indeed be eligible to discussion, and I also think we >>>> might want to proceed with only PRs, but the way you do it... >>>> And the name you use for kk in CC is, well… >>>> >>>> Name was allowed, see meeting logs. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-12-20 15:26 GMT+01:00 Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Kostya, >>>>> >>>>> I understand your concern, but messages of such kind can be considered >>>>> as a personal offense. >>>>> >>>> Any question can be transformed in any way you want. >>>> >>>> Kohsuke is not the only person committing in such way, so it's >>>>> definitely a wider problem, which requires a discussion. BTW currently >>>>> there is no policy prohibiting such approach, so the direct commits are >>>>> generally valid even if they smell bad. >>>>> >>>> Never saw anybody else, could you share more examples? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm +1 on prohibiting direct pushes to the master branches for >>>>> everybody and in all repos. And Jenkins core core is not an exception. >>>>> It makes the current release and changelogging approach a bit >>>>> problematic, but it's another story. >>>>> >>>>> if you signed ICLA and do some questionable changes into master (here >>>>>> i see 2 violations) person should get core access removal, right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. There is no such policy in Jenkins project. If you have any >>>>> concerns about particular contributors, raise the topic to the governance >>>>> meeting. It's the *ONLY* way for discussing such topics. >>>>> >>>> That what core committers said to me when i asked about ICLA and perms. >>>> Would be glad to see documented way without double standards. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> воскресенье, 20 декабря 2015 г., 17:03:40 UTC+3 пользователь >>>>> Kanstantsin Shautsou написал: >>>>>> >>>>>> Situation: people doing reviews, blocking PRs for weeks,months,years >>>>>> while some people do direct commits to core master without any reviews. >>>>>> This ends to situations when master gets broken state that reflects >>>>>> on PR builds verification, i.e. >>>>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/d86a88ab042cc55530d91e745af9e0886e8eeb79 >>>>>> Unreviewed changes adds chaos. While people reviewing and close to >>>>>> get rid of unconfigurable settings in >>>>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/1914 one person is doing >>>>>> direct master changes >>>>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/653fbdb65024b1b528e21f682172885f7111bba9 >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjenkins%2Fcommit%2F653fbdb65024b1b528e21f682172885f7111bba9&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGfejtJii5ClN4CxzyDP_BzWpWFag> >>>>>> >>>>>> Proposal: stop doing such unreviewed changes and forbid direct master >>>>>> commits (either at all, either only for mentioned person). >>>>>> >>>>>> PS. AFAIR/AFAIK if you signed ICLA and do some questionable changes >>>>>> into master (here i see 2 violations) person should get core access >>>>>> removal, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/630f6633-d494-4726-8c21-d63890ce040a%40googlegroups.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/630f6633-d494-4726-8c21-d63890ce040a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net >>>> Sauvez un arbre, >>>> Mangez un castor ! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/d64UIypbzh0/unsubscribe >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANWgJS61D%2BXzO0Xd8jV2icNU27mJSTGZM5R0OM8rNme12ZnEFg%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANWgJS61D%2BXzO0Xd8jV2icNU27mJSTGZM5R0OM8rNme12ZnEFg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/D11D841C-4F09-4893-95C4-F5B146F25C88%40gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/D11D841C-4F09-4893-95C4-F5B146F25C88%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPbPdOb9uQr5_ebS82FeMJoBp32xRKU541rkGoMrw2YTN-apaw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPbPdOb9uQr5_ebS82FeMJoBp32xRKU541rkGoMrw2YTN-apaw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jenkinsci-dev%[email protected]');> > . > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/75c80dd2-6e06-4676-8a1e-bfb5bee688f7%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/75c80dd2-6e06-4676-8a1e-bfb5bee688f7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from my phone -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMwnuHMGT2P4L6UvTzAt0GX-qeUDpdFpFaDr_W8DwTos0Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
