Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 27. Oct 2017, at 21:03, Liam Newman wrote: > > I believe JEP-1 is on the agenda for the next governance meeting. Please > review the PR and any propose fixes/changes now. > A reminder: the meeting time is specified in UTC, which for the US and most of Europe at

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Jesse has pointed out that the process does not say when or how JEPs are merged to master. There is discussion/proposals needed around what this should look like: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/25 On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:45:54 AM UTC-7, Liam Newman wrote: > > Proposed

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I wasn't suggesting anything as comprehensive as an API spec, nor suggesting that it would be needed for the review process. But as I've understood the JEP is that it should, among other things, serve as an archive for why something looks and behaves like it does. So for people browsing that

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

animal sniffer could be adapted to assist, for example On 31 October 2017 at 16:32, Jesse Glick wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Robert Sandell > wrote: > > Not having to > > also browse through potentially thousands of lines of code in

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Robert Sandell wrote: > Not having to > also browse through potentially thousands of lines of code in one or more > PRs I fully agree that this can be painful; my suggestion was however that the list of API changes be mechanically

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Proposed change to Add an option JIRA header has been merged. On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:28:29 AM UTC-7, Liam Newman wrote: > > FYI > Jesse has proposed the adding an optional JIRA header. > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/21 > > It seems reasonable to me. Unless there is strong

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:28 AM Daniel Beck wrote: > > > On 31. Oct 2017, at 11:12, Robert Sandell > wrote: > > > > Thoughts? > > > > If it's relevant enough and not just implementation detail, it can always > be added by the author even in the current

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I was mostly thinking of it as an aid to the reader so that you don't have to do a ton of detective work when browsing the list of JEPs. Not having to also browse through potentially thousands of lines of code in one or more PRs and perhaps wiki docs etc. linked from the JEP. In Jesse's case it

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Daniel Beck wrote: > quite a bit of what's in Jesse's JEP exists there only because the > implementation is basically already done. In this case, yes, excepting whatever might be turned up by further testing or discussion. > I think that's not

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 31. Oct 2017, at 11:12, Robert Sandell wrote: > > Thoughts? > If it's relevant enough and not just implementation detail, it can always be added by the author even in the current format. But expecting a complete list of added/deprecated/removed APIs will just

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Now that I've read Jesse's "JEP-: Switch Remoting/XStream blacklist to a whitelist" I'm thinking that maybe some form of "API summary" at the end for applicable JEPs would be nice to have. Just listing suggested deprecations, added methods, environment vars etc. previously mentioned in the

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

FYI Jesse has proposed the adding an optional JIRA header. https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/21 It seems reasonable to me. Unless there is strong opposition I'll merge this the main proposal on Wednesday. Thanks, Liam Newman On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:33:15 PM UTC-7, Kohsuke

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Thanks! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM Liam Newman wrote: > Updates: > >- All proposed changes have been merged >- BDFL Delegates are fully described >- Governance meeting has oversight of BDFL >- Added JEP Template to the PR > >

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Updates: - All proposed changes have been merged - BDFL Delegates are fully described - Governance meeting has oversight of BDFL - Added JEP Template to the PR https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/12 is now fully up-to-date and comments made so far have been addressed. I believe

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

There's been quiet a bit of discussion offline about this I've closed #18 as Kohsuke's objections to it make it a non-starter. I've instead opened * https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/19 that restores BDFL delegates * https://github.com/bitwiseman/jep/pull/1 proposed amendment to #19 that

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I admit I kept my eyes off this ball for a while. Naturally, I'm surprised at this change. My understanding was that this change is being considered as a reaction to those two concerns: > 1. Kohsuke as the BDFL introduces a problematic bottleneck to the process >(there are way more of us,

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

In the latest change, I've proposed removing the BDFL role. https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/18 to see the changes. (Note: in a previous PR I replaced the BDFL-delegate role with a "Reviewer" role and had expanded the description of BDFL.) I got it this far, but I'm out of bandwidth to

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 11. Oct 2017, at 21:03, Jesse Glick wrote: > > As an aside, it just occurred to me that JENKINS-41745 is something > that I would have done as a JEP had that existed at the time. Having > the templates and structure in place would have made it easier to > write up the

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

As an aside, it just occurred to me that JENKINS-41745 is something that I would have done as a JEP had that existed at the time. Having the templates and structure in place would have made it easier to write up the proposal https://gist.github.com/jglick/9721427da892a9b2f75dc5bc09f8e6b3 and of

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 5. Oct 2017, at 18:01, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > > There has been a tremendous amount of productive discussion, with a lot of > helpful editing work by Liam. I think the process is ready for an approval in > a > Governance meeting, so I'm going to put the proposal on the

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

There has been a tremendous amount of productive discussion, with a lot of helpful editing work by Liam. I think the process is ready for an approval in a Governance meeting, so I'm going to put the proposal on the agenda for the Oct 11th meeting. Proposal:

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 27. Sep 2017, at 12:06, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > If there is a consensus in the mailing list, no strict need to involve the > governance meeting from the technical PoV. The only purpose of the governance > meeting here is to... > • Act as a arbiter when

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

If there is a consensus in the mailing list, no strict need to involve the governance meeting from the technical PoV. The only purpose of the governance meeting here is to... - Act as a arbiter when there is no agreement in the mailing list - To legitimate the decisions, so that the

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 27. Sep 2017, at 11:36, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > Regarding the process, some minor comments... > • I would expect Delegates to be discussed in the mailing list before > the JEP submission, so it just needs approval at the governance meeting. TBH the group of

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Hi all, Sorry for being silent. I have blocked the original PR due to the BDFL concern, so I wanted to let others to provide feedback. The flip-down model works for me. It is pretty similar to what I proposed here ("Governance meeting mode")

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

> On 19. Sep 2017, at 19:12, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > > While I had hoped we might be able to get some consensus in time for > tomorrow's > project meeting There was none, it is (and always has been) scheduled for next week, September 27. Just general FYI to prevent

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I didn't get the sense that the BDFL would be a bottle neck when you explained it to us at the contributor summit. To me it seemed like the BDFL would only have to get involved if consensus between the author, editors and other reviewers can't be reached, or if he needs to put in a veto to stop

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

(replies inline) On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1 Since I'm sure not everybody has been following along with some of the pull requests and changes while we've been hammering out JEP-1, I would like to provide a little bit of an

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

(replies inline) On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Liam Newman wrote: > I think this is great idea. I agree with the proposed process. > > I think the proposal document itself could use some tweaks, which I've > suggested in PR (oops oh well). No worries whatsoever! This is still fresh from the oven,

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I think this is great idea. I agree with the proposed process. I think the proposal document itself could use some tweaks, which I've suggested in PR (oops oh well). On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-7, R Tyler Croy wrote: > > At the Jenkins World Contributor Summit a

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Having read and edited JEP-1, I am in favor of this idea as presented :) On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Keith Zantow wrote: > ... random suggestion: "JPI" Jenkins Proposal Initiative/Initiation. > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jesse Glick

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

... random suggestion: "JPI" Jenkins Proposal Initiative/Initiation. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jesse Glick wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, R. Tyler Croy > wrote: > > I think we should try to reach > > consensus on this thread > >

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > I think we should try to reach > consensus on this thread Sounds like a good idea to me! Structure seems pretty clear. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers"

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

(replies inline) On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Oliver Gond??a wrote: > I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok with > the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals? Which one we are > referring to should be straightforward from the context but when this > becomes

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Oliver Gondža wrote: > I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok with > the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals? I had the same thought. JKEP-nnn? -- You received this message because you are

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok with the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals? Which one we are referring to should be straightforward from the context but when this becomes more widespread and changes will be refereed to by their IDs, google