cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Date Fri, 03 May 2013 18:38:33 GMT
Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1] with following comment

	[Animesh>] +1,  that is the reason Apache projects do not use @author tag. I take back
my original argument of auto-assigning based on 	maintainers list. I did a search but did
not find any community using auto-assignment. The community argument  wins.


Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be dropped and just call it
maintainers or other inviting name.  


[1] http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from:"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintai
> ners+Per+Component
> 
> I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" and
> "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage contribution. So I
> thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
> 
> If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis could be one
> person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if you wanted to.
> It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested parties.
> 
> If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this piece of code
> is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that person. Or
> perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How does it
> work?
> 
> (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or BFDLs.
> It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission culture
> where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author names
> in source code file. We never want someone to look at something, with an
> idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I better not, this isn't mine.")
> 
> I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
> 
> On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects for a
> > specific module add their name as maintainer of  that module in
> > component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute wiki on
> this process .
> >
> > During 4.1  there are a large number of major issues that as community
> > we ended up not addressing and given that number of unassigned issues
> > is high % should we consider auto-assign based on the maintainers
> > list? This is still not optimal since auto-assign will go to primary
> > maintainer and secondary maintainers still need to pull in defects
> > but is better than one person triaging defects.
> >
> 
> I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of that
> thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other
> Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this
> "primary maintainer" column.)
> 
> --
> NS

Mime
View raw message