What slots are suitable for you? Meeting time shift was discussed few times but 
nothing changed.
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 14:58, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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] 
> <mailto:[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 
> <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 
> <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
>>  
>> <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 
>> <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 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net <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 
>> <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 
>> <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 
> <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 
> <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 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from my phone
> 
> --
> 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 
> <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] 
> <mailto:[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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMwnuHMGT2P4L6UvTzAt0GX-qeUDpdFpFaDr_W8DwTos0Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <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/D4E4A607-84D3-4F22-B975-535C3E9EA313%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to