cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development
Date Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:44:35 GMT
I too, use this method quite a bit, almost every single day.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Morishita <mor.yuki@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an active committer, the most important thing for me is to be able
> to *look up* design discussion and decision easily later.
>
> I often look up the git history or CHANGES.txt for changes that I'm
> interested in, then look up JIRA by following JIRA ticket number
> written to the comment or text.
> If we move to dev mailing list, I would request to post permalink to
> that thread posted to JIRA, which I think is just one extra step that
> isn't necessary if we simply use JIRA.
>
> So, I'm +1 to just post JIRA link to dev list.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > This is a good outward flow of info to the dev list. However, there
> needs to be
> > inward flow too – having the convo on the dev list will be a good start
> to that.
> > I hope to see more inclusivity here.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/15/16, 10:26 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <aleksey@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Well, if you read carefully what Jeremiah and I have just proposed,
> it wouldn’t be an issue.
> >
> >     The notable major changes would start off on dev@ (think, a
> summary, a link to the JIRA, and maybe an attached spec doc).
> >
> >     No need to follow the JIRA feed. Watch dev@ for those announcements
> and start watching the invidual JIRA tickets if interested.
> >
> >     This creates the least amount of noise: you miss nothing important,
> and at the same time you won’t be receiving mail from
> >     dev@ for each individual comment - including those on proposals you
> don’t care about.
> >
> >     We aren’t doing it currently, but we could, and probably should.
> >
> >     --
> >     AY
> >
> >     On 15 August 2016 at 18:22:36, Chris Mattmann (mattmann@apache.org)
> wrote:
> >
> >     Discussion belongs on the dev list. Putting discussion in JIRA, is
> fine, but realize,
> >     there is a lot of noise in that signal and people may or may not be
> watching
> >     the JIRA list. In fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all
> so you are basically
> >     forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in
> JIRA.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <aleksey@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >     I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs
> on the dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it
> belongs.
> >
> >     You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to
> dev@ and then start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
> >
> >     --
> >     AY
> >
> >     On 15 August 2016 at 18:08:20, Jeremiah D Jordan (
> jeremiah.jordan@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >     I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one
> place, and it is easy to refer someone to it in the future.
> >     But I agree that JIRA tickets with a bunch of design discussion and
> POC’s and such in them can get pretty long and convoluted.
> >
> >     I don’t really like the idea of moving all of that discussion to
> email which makes it has harder to point someone to it. Maybe a better idea
> would be to have a “design/POC” JIRA and an “implementation” JIRA. That way
> we could still keep things in JIRA, but the final decision would be kept
> “clean”.
> >
> >     Though it would be nice if people would send an email to the dev
> list when proposing “design” JIRA’s, as not everyone has time to follow
> every JIRA ever made to see that a new design JIRA was created that they
> might be interested in participating on.
> >
> >     My 2c.
> >
> >     -Jeremiah
> >
> >
> >     > On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development
> discussions
> >     > on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless
> nature
> >     > helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked.
> >     >
> >     > But Cassandra was a lot smaller then, and as we've grown it has
> become
> >     > necessary to separate out the signal (discussions of new features
> and major
> >     > changes) from the noise of routine bug reports.
> >     >
> >     > I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that
> >     > separation. Major new features and architectural improvements
> should be
> >     > discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved,
> moved to
> >     > Jira for implementation and review.
> >     >
> >     > I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea
> proves
> >     > to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much
> >     > discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion
> was, as
> >     > review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that
> discussion on the
> >     > list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this.
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Jonathan Ellis
> >     > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> >     > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> >     > @spyced
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Yuki Morishita
>  t:yukim (http://twitter.com/yukim)
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message