camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Willem jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [CAMEL-3.0] Start moving forward
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:57:03 GMT
I'm OK for the discussion in the IRC and post the discussion back to dev list so every one
have a chance to express his opinion.
And we made decision in the mailing list.



--  
Willem Jiang

Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English)
          http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang  
Weibo: 姜宁willem





On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

> Willem, yeah it's tough with your time zone, but you can find many of us  
> on irc at various time. And btw, your statement that it's "not an Apache  
> Way" is not quite accurate. The channel is logged and the relevant  
> content of the discuss (and/or link) will be posted on dev@ anyway. The  
> Apache Way is to have an open decision making process. And from what I  
> understand what Christian proposed is exactly that. More precisely,  
> those interested/available can have discussions on irc (or other  
> channels, including private), decisions are still be made on the dev@  
> list and results posted on the wiki.
>  
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>  
> On 01/21/2013 08:17 PM, Willem jiang wrote:
> > Hi Christian
> >  
> > Just one comments for the meeting in IRC.
> > It is not an Apache Way to make decision through the IRC.
> > As you know the time you chose is the middle night (3 AM) in my timezone.
> >  
> > Maybe we can drop a discussion lines in the wiki page, so every one who wants to
join the discussion can have the same page to look in. It could be helpful to past the IRC
talk into the wiki page at the same time.
> >  
> >  
> > --
> > Willem Jiang
> >  
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> > Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com
> > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English)
> > http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese)
> > Twitter: willemjiang
> > Weibo: 姜宁willem
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Christian Müller wrote:
> >  
> > > Hi Hadrian!
> > >  
> > > Please find my comments inline.
> > >  
> > > Best,
> > > Christian
> > >  
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com (mailto:hzbarcea@gmail.com)>
wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Christian,
> > > >  
> > > > Thanks for taking the initiative and restarting the process for Camel
3.0.
> > > > The good news imho is that we're under no pressure and we can take the
time
> > > > to get it right.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Right.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I like your proposal of effectively splitting the camel-3.0-roadmap page
> > > > into multiple pages. If I understand correctly you are suggesting the
> > > > following:
> > > > - proposals should go on the [ideas] wiki and the discussions on the
> > > > mailing lists would refer to the wiki
> > > > - the [ideas] page should only contain items currently under discussion
> > > > - accepted ideas should move to one of the [roadmap] pages
> > > > - keep separate [roadmap] pages for changes to be implemented in
> > > > [2.x-roadmap], [3.0-roadmap] and [3.x-roadmap]
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Absolute correct.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > The goal is to move faster and to avoid votes except in highly contentious
> > > > situations which we hope to avoid. I think that would work. I also think
> > > > that have an open concall on irc (plus maybe other channel) at a scheduled
> > > > time would be great, although hard to accommodate the time zones.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Right. I propose every Tuesday 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central European Time, but
> > > I'm open for others if someone has issues with this (starting tomorrow). I
> > > propose we use our normal IRC chat room at irc://irc.codehaus.org/camel (http://irc.codehaus.org/camel)
and
> > > see how it works. Using IRC has the advantage of easy publishing the chat
> > > at dev@ after.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I would add the following:
> > > > 1. The ideas on the [ideas] page should be short, containing just an
> > > > abstract. If it takes more than that the details should go in a separate
> > > > [discuss] thread or another page.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Do you think we should go ahead and endorse on the ideas page? Otherwise I
> > > will start some [DISCUSS] threads for the ideas I will promote.
> > >  
> > >  
> > > > 2. Keep [discuss] threads focused on one topic only
> > > > 3. Use endorsements (e.g. username or initials like [hadrian]) to show
> > > > support for an idea (or [-1 hadrian] for a negative endorsement)
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Good idea. I updated the new Roadmap page.
> > >  
> > > > 4. Once an idea has enough endorsements (3-5, dunno, need to agree on
> > > > something) and no negative endorsement for at least say 72 hours or more,
> > > > we move it to a [roadmap] page.
> > > > 5. Have only a limited number of 'editors' to move [ideas] to [roadmap]
> > > > 6. I am also thinking that each accepted idea on the [roadmap] should
have
> > > > a champion (not necessarily to implement/commit the code, but stay on
top
> > > > of it)
> > > >  
> > > > If no objections within 3 hours I will get to organizing the pages.
> > > Thanks for the initial work.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > In terms of concrete development, Guillaume had a very interesting
> > > > proposal at ACEU in November. We discussed concrete ways of refactoring
the
> > > > api and realized that it's very hard to fully explain an idea without
> > > > showing some code and it's even harder to grasp the consequences without
> > > > experimenting a bit with the code. We talked about doing that either in
a
> > > > (1) separate, possibly github, repo, (2) on a branch or (3) in the sandbox.
> > > > This would have the advantage of being able to show an fast idea without
> > > > concern for backward compatibility and all. More I thought about it, more
I
> > > > liked the approach. Of the three alternatives, the one I like the most
is
> > > > (3), I guess.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > If we can have multiple sandboxes for different ideas, +1.
> > >  
> > > To anticipate objections (miscommunication will happen no matter how hard
> > > > we'll try) backward compatibility and easy, painless migration are major
> > > > goals for 3.0, I would assume everybody agrees. The ways to get there
are
> > > > many though.
> > > >  
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Hadrian
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > On 01/16/2013 04:12 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > I find it very difficult to start a such huge and important challenge
as
> > > > > Camel 3.0 will be, for sure. I think the most difficult part is to
get
> > > > > consensus about what we do it and how we do it. We already collect
some
> > > > > useful ideas at [1], but I have the feeling we have to review these
ideas.
> > > > > First of all, because I don't think we can do all of them in one
release
> > > > > (I
> > > > > also have a few more - more important from my point of view - ideas,
> > > > > collected from users, contributors, committers and PMC members).
Second,
> > > > > some ideas need more "meat" before someone else than the authors
know what
> > > > > this means and which impact it has. Third, a few of these ideas are
> > > > > already
> > > > > implemented in Camel 2.11 or before, so that we can remove it from
this
> > > > > page to be more focused.
> > > > >  
> > > > > - Rename "Camel 3.0 - Roadmap" into "Camel 3.0 - Ideas"
> > > > >  
> > > > > - Start a fresh "Camel 3.0 - Roadmap" WIKI page which we will fill
with
> > > > > content in the next weeks
> > > > > - I propose to subdivide this page into three (child) pages:
> > > > > - What has to be done before we can start working on Camel 3.0
> > > > > (probably
> > > > > during the (short term) Camel 2.12)
> > > > > - What are the changes we do in Camel 3.0
> > > > > - What is postpone to 3.1 or later
> > > > > - Afterwards we put everything together, we will see on which ideas
we
> > > > > already agree and which ones requires detailed discussions.
> > > > > - For later ones I propose a weekly (or two times per week) IRC/Skype
> > > > > session for discussion (Which days/time fit best for you?)
> > > > > - We should also start a [DISCUSS CAMEL-3.0: <TOPIC>] thread
at dev@for
> > > > > the guys they are not able to attend
> > > > > - Afterwards we will send the results to the dev@ mailing list to
> > > > > share
> > > > > it (if you are interested in it, join us at dev@camel.apache.org
(mailto:dev@camel.apache.org))
> > > > >  
> > > > > I will start with it after 72 h to give everyone the possibility
to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > another approach (I will only start writing down some ideas which
are not
> > > > > on table right now). And of course, every help is welcome. A simple
-1 or
> > > > > better +1 ;-) is not much, but also helpful and better than no feedback...
> > > > > Better, if you join us [2] and ride together with us Camel 3.0.
> > > > >  
> > > > > [1] http://camel.apache.org/camel-**30-roadmap.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-30-roadmap.html>
> > > > > [2] http://camel.apache.org/**contributing.html<http://camel.apache.org/contributing.html>
> > > > >  
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Christian
> > > > >  
> > > > > --
> > >  
> > >  
> > > --  



Mime
View raw message