Paul, So where do you want to go with this? Perhaps, propose specific changes to the community (based on current docs, or last round of proposed) and see if there's buy-in?
Really, it comes down to how you plan to do things differently for the next release. Lou On 10/3/2016 5:44 AM, Paul Jakma wrote: > Hi Lou, > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> Just restating things I've said here before : >> >> - I don't the issue is backlog > It definitely was an issue. People were complaining about how long stuf > had been waiting. I'm not imagining that, pretty sure. > > More generally, there are issue_s_. I don't think there is any /one/ > issue, the solving of which there is a magic bullet for. > >> - I do think the issue is that in order for >> organizations/companies/individuals to invest in an open source >> project that there needs to be process transparency, predicable >> releases, and a deterministic way to get submissions/patches into a >> release. > process transparency, regular releases, deterministic process for > submissions, yes, all good. Though "to get submissions/patches into a > release" is assuming a bit too much. > >> - I frankly don't see how the current model scales or satisfies this. > Well, based on queue length it has objectively done better than what was > there before. As the queue length has gone from increasing to > decreasing, and from years of stuff waiting for action on the review to > less than a years worth of stuff (assuming Martin's full protocol tests > pass and we get a release out RSN). > > Is it the best model for a steady state? I don't know. Are there further > improvements to make, no doubt. > > However, it seemed the best way to get stuff done on the backlog, in a > fairly transparent and systematic way, given the lack of willing > resources. > >> - A bunch of the community worked together to come up with a proposed >> new process and wanted to try it out -- which, from my perspective, >> you vetoed. > Cause it wanted to change _everything_: > > - The ethos and constitution of Quagga > > From one where the onus is on submitters to get submissions to a > standard high enough in terms of (as applicable) design documentation > and advance planning, code organisation and style, and testing, so > that at least no one else strongly enough to object; > > To one where alliances of contributors, potentially some with next to > _no prior involvement_ in Quagga, could band together to shove stuff > through, and where reviewers with objections would have only days to > try rally others to their view. To the extent I'm mistaken on that, it > was to the extent this was under-specified (however, the intent of > majority voting for stuff to go in was clearly there). > > I.e., code going in based on the 51% with the /lowest/ standards, and > a more political and gameable process. > > I think the biggest gulf between the proposers of the mega-changes and > myself was in this area. > > - The integration process was actually _gaining_ overhead and > bureaucracy from a day to day process. > > Patches to require explicit 2nd ACKs - that's overhead. IME with > Quagga, most stuff doesn't need ACKs. People will object to > objectionable stuff, and they'll let it pass otherwise. A "Revisions > needed" model for those minority of patches is more efficient than > a "ack for every patch". > > - The proposed integration process was more a contributors wish list > than a readily implementable integration process. > > Patches to go be applied within days, by who? How? > > I've written before about lessons learned in the past from Quagga, on > patches can more easily fall through the cracks when it isn't clear > who is responsible for applying. Also "days" - there are a number of > problems with that, in various dimensions (see also above on ethos). > > The contributors view of the process is only half the story. It also > has to work for and be efficient for the integrator(s). See also > prior. If you increase the overheads for integrators, then things > likely get worse. > > - Changing the communication tools from email to video conferencing. > > Real-time comms is nice for forming opinions, but it's ungood for > definitive decision making comms. Quagga, as with many open-source > projects, is distributed across the world, and it impossible to suit > everyone (and people in global orgs may already have calendar > competition for time-slots that suit multiple parts of the globe). > > AV also needs reliable bandwidth, not always a guarantee. (E.g., right > now I don't have that). > > Also, I much prefer email for deliberative stuff. > > - Multiple branches and releases, with unclear relationships between > them. > > Overall, the proposals were vague on many important things. On some of > the more concrete points, they seemed to be objectively adding overheads > (rather than decreasing), and changing the ethos of the project to one > that I don't like (cause, I've done the "shove everything in" thing > already - in the early days of Quagga; and it lead to quality issues > that took a _lot_ of years to fix; so I don't want to go back there). > > So, let's change stuff for the better. There's a lot of scope for more > automation, and moving more of the work to the contributor side: > > - some kind of auto-integrating head, to accumulate stuff from the list > in a linear order and do the CI pass/fail. > > I'm less keen on having GitHub in the middle though. > > - work out how to fit review onto that. I'd go with a batched pipe-line > for this. Basically, kicking out the CI-pass patches that have > other nits / review issues, and punting them with comments back to the > submitter. > > - releases: I'd almost be tempted to make that a cron job > > Identify specific issues, or specific potential improvements, and lets > evaluate them - bearing in mind many of the goals and constraints are in > tension. > > Further, those tensions can be dynamic in nature. Optimising to reduce > one tension, may over time increase another tension. Oscillating hard > over time, bouncing between tensions, may not be good either... > > regards, _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quaggafirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev