Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Perfect. Gj On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > > > > IIUC what you're describing is CTR, Commit-Then-Review. > > It's perfectly fine for an Apache project to use CTR for some parts of > > its code and RTC (Review-Then-Commit) for other, more critical

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Emilian Bold
> > IIUC what you're describing is CTR, Commit-Then-Review. > It's perfectly fine for an Apache project to use CTR for some parts of > its code and RTC (Review-Then-Commit) for other, more critical parts. Bless you! --emi On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
If nobody objects, I volunteer to setup a Wiki page, make a layout, and write up some things. Then, the community can review, add, remove, etc, and then make some decisions, and one decision may be we defer, but having something to look at to give a better idea of what we are all talking about

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

2017-02-27 Thread Neil C Smith
Hi, On 27 February 2017 at 18:03, Wade Chandler wrote: > There are logging solutions to deal with that which we are discussing on > Slack. Too, I think “key” conversations is the key ... we will bring > important things to the list once we feel like we have something

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread John McDonnell
@Emilian, Would you not want someone else to review anyways? Yes as a committer you have more access, than say I do, but without any checks and balances not every committer might be writing code to the same quality. - Or maybe another committer has better knowledge of a certain area and is

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread John McDonnell
Apologies, too much confusion in the last email... > @Emilian, > > Would you not want someone else to review your code changes anyways? > > > Yes as a committer you have more access, than say I do, but without any > checks and balances, not every committer might be writing their code to the

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

2017-02-27 Thread Neil C Smith
On 27 February 2017 at 16:02, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > My (own, unwritten) rule in Apache projects is to move things to the > dev list as soon as they go beyond the level of a coffee machine > discussion - and when they do, restart the discussions here stating > what

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > ...As a committer I expect *precisely* to be able to push changes without any > review... > ...I believe the Apache "Lazy Consensus" matches my view perfectly... IIUC what you're describing is CTR,

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 11:48, Emilian Bold wrote: > I really don't see an empowered committer as someone outside the community. > I’m not sure that has been stated. I don’t see someone sending a patch as outside the community either; they are just newer. Having a process

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Emilian Bold
> If becoming a contributor means I don’t have to sync up with the “herd” or “pack", and can just push changes in, without any review, or repercussion, then that isn’t exactly community or being responsible As a committer I expect *precisely* to be able to push changes without any review. As a

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
I think it already does mean something. Contributors have the right to actually vote, where as someone sending a patch doesn’t. Contributors can actually merge something in. Contributors get a massive deal on ApacheConf tickets. We have Apache user IDs and other items of access many don’t. But,

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

2017-02-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > ...It really started off with us discussing the way some code works, and then > led to some other conversations, and now has led here... That's great then! I didn't follow the whole trail, just was under the

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
Isn’t that perhaps the way it has worked out in this case? I agree with the base premise of what you are saying, but wondering how it would bubble up in a different way. It really started off with us discussing the way some code works, and then led to some other conversations, and now has led

Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

2017-02-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi, On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:33 PM, someone wrote: > ...(he) and I have been having some DM discussions offline on Slack as an > example, and we have been > discussing what it means to have modules... It would be great to bring such discussions here as soon as they become "important". My

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
A PR can be very specific to one specific feature or fix; features and fixes can sometimes be fairly small. It could also be specific to a single facet of a larger feature or fix such as setting up some base library or adding some new and dependent API or SPI, or some set of changes which can

Re: DevNexus

2017-02-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Hi all, It was really great at DevNexus last week: 1. DevNexus donated a Silver Sponsorship to NetBeans, in support of our move to Apache. Thanks again DevNexus! 2. As a result of the above, we had a booth, where we were able to engage with a lot of NetBeans users. Most people stopping by the

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Wade Chandler
I agree and think we need a process. There are certain aspects of NetBeans that make it what it is. 1) First, it is a rich client platform. 2) There is an IDE built on the platform. 3) Much has been extensible and we often want it more so; look at recent discussions of “friend". 4) We have

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Emilian Bold
A process will emerge but I find it important that a committer should actually *mean* something. It does and should mean extra rights and extra responsibilities. --emi Pe 27 feb. 2017, la 16:43, Geertjan Wielenga a scris: > That's true. Good point. > >

Aw: Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Christian Lenz
Hey Emi, no problem and thx for the info. I know such PR with a lots of commits is not that easy. The PR gets bigger and bigger the more I commit and pushed to my forked repo. This is normal work, if we working as real contributors, I think. I will have a look whether I can create a patch with

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
That's true. Good point. Still, we'll need some kind of process, i.e., a staging process as well as test specifications for those who'll be testing new releases etc. Gj On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > > I fear a future where everyone can simply

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Emilian Bold
> I fear a future where everyone can simply put anything into NetBeans in Apache without any kind of intermediate or staging process. Not everybody will be an Apache committer and that's why we have a vote for it. --emi Pe 27 feb. 2017, la 16:08, Geertjan Wielenga

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
We also need to figure out a way to do some kind of code quality checks and tests and so on -- I fear a future where everyone can simply put anything into NetBeans in Apache without any kind of intermediate or staging process. Gj On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <

Re: Code contribution process.

2017-02-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Best to wait until the code has moved from Oracle to Apache and to use the official repository once it is set up. Gj On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Christian Lenz wrote: > I know there is long way to go to bring NetBeans to apache, but a lot of > people signed such