couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Transactional _bulk_docs
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:46:40 GMT
Hi,

*pouring water over the fire*

The progression of this is very unfortunate. There was no formal  
discussion,
neither on IRC or a mailing list. We are all aware of the ASF ways of  
running
a project and we didn't handle that one well.

Apologies.

Now: Damien discussed the bulk docs feature on IRC and noted that for
multi-node CouchDB and a consistent interface it has to go and we all
agreed that this is a good thing. This is effectively a PMC decision.  
But
that's not the Apache-way of doing things. We deferred discussing all
details until Damien finished the patch.

Multi-node CouchDB was a day one design goal and well communicated
everywhere. We were also very vocal about breaking the API before 0.9.
Everybody investing in the API has been warned and has been doing on
their own risk.

Now, the new behaviour is currently being worked on and has not been
discussed since Damien is heads down with the code and as usual, I
think, planned to introduce the code with the patch. Again, this is code
that has been planned from day one.

The discussion of keeping the current (in-flux-API) bulk feature is a
separate one and I think the voices here are loud enough that we
should look at a way to support them.

The whole thing started because I closed a bug with a comment that
there must be an _upcoming discussion_. This got taken up at THE
PMC IS DOING EVERYTHING BEHIND THE SCENES. Which we
don't.

Damien's latest mail is a little unfortunate. He gets the Apache way
and the ASF understands the virtues of IRC, and the middle ground is
that major discussions must be held on the mailing lists. The PMC
is simply waiting for the patch to land, so there's no need to get
nervous. Thanks.

(Aside, this came up on user@ last week and I hoped that this would
have been the end of that until the patch lands.)

Cheers
Jan
--




On 5 Feb 2009, at 12:14, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> [sending second time, as I see my first is stuck in moderation, and  
> I want to reply in a timely manner]
>
> Sure, ideally.
>
> But you can't have "everyone" together at the same time on IRC,  
> where at the ASF, we define "everyone" to be, well, "everyone", not  
> you and the 4 others on the PMC.
>
> I see 579 people on the user list.  I see 294 people on the dev  
> list.  Just focusing on the dev list, that's 290 people, or 98.6% of  
> people supposedly interested in CouchDB development, that had zero  
> opportunity to see, review and participate in the discussion.   
> Further, there's now zero chance that any future project participant  
> can look back to understand design decision and philosophy.  No  
> institutional memory.  Your goal, besides building a great software  
> project, should be to get the community to the point where you can  
> step back and do other things w/o material effect on the community,  
> and that requires information like this to be somewhere accessible.
>
> And unlike Ted, I don't agree that a pointer to an IRC log is  
> sufficient to represent a "done decision", and he may not have meant  
> that anyway.  Sure, I can see a chat starting on IRC about a topic,  
> but I'd hope that one person would force the move from IRC to the  
> mail list - and at that point, maybe posting a pointer to the  
> *initial* discussion log would be useful.  And after that,  
> discussion is on the mail list.
>
> I think IRC logs are a very poor substitute to mail traffic (and  
> yes, I grok the downside of async communications).  A primary one  
> reason that they are very "in the moment" - if you are in the  
> conversation, it's easy to stay in, but after, when things cool and  
> the context of the moment isn't there, it's neigh impossible.  You  
> also can't hit reply and quote a piece for others to see and  
> discuss, further broadening the discussion.
>
> What got me engaged on this wasn't the decision itself (only because  
> it was a secret decision), but -like Ted - the mode of operation.   
> It seemed that a very dedicated, engaged and interested community  
> member had to privately petition the PMC for redress on a technical  
> decision that none of us had any awareness of, nor a chance to  
> review.  And IMO, from a guy that probably should be a committer and  
> PMC member to boot!
>
> (By the way - from my count, not all PMC members are even on the  
> PMC's private@ list, so I have *no clue* where project private  
> discussion - like new committer candidates - are even discussed....)
>
> geir
>
> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Damien Katz wrote:
>
>> Ideally yes, but real time communication with everyone together is  
>> damn useful.
>>
>> -Damien
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, project decisions are supposed to be made in the public  
>>> mailing lists...
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>> This decision was discussed and made on IRC.
>>>>
>>>> -Damien
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> can you point me to a reference to where the PMC made this  
>>>>> decision?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested in the subject for it's own sake, and I'm also  
>>>>> interested in figuring out where decisions are made in this  
>>>>> project, since I didn't see this one go by on a mail list.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Geir, there was a decision made by the PMCs to change the  
>>>>>> transaction model to support partitioned databases. It is a  
>>>>>> change I am currently working on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and original question #2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2009, at 12:02 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) where is this being forwarded from ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I sent it to the PMC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Antony Blakey
>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
>>>>>>>> Ph: 0438 840 787
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me
one  
>>>>>>>> with everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for  
>>>>>>>> change. The vendor says, "Change comes from within".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message