couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Comments threads on Github
Date Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:43:32 GMT

On Mar 15, 2013, at 21:40 , Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
>> place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
>> vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation.
>> 
>> This makes a lot of sense. Anyone remember Google Code? Remember how
>> AWESOME Google Code was? I even had my website hosted out of it. Everyone
>> was doing cool shit with Google Code. Because it was AWESOME. That wasn't
>> that long ago, when you think about it. CouchDB was in a Google Code repos
>> before we moved to Apache. But now who uses Google Code? I mean, seriously.
>> When you see a project hosted on Google Code, doesn't your heart just sink
>> a little bit?
>> 
>> The point being, can you imagine if the ASF had decided to move all of
>> their hosting to Google Code? Can you imagine how embarrassing that would
>> be now? Where would we be today in that world? Would we migrate again?
>> 
>> Github is awesome. And I enjoy using it. And there are many very successful
>> projects who have formed a community around the workflows that it offers.
>> (Hello Node.js people!) And that's awesome. Genuinely. But we are not
>> hosted on Github, and our community is not a Github shape. BUT we should do
>> everything we can to welcome contributions through that channel. Just like
>> we should work to welcome communications through any channel. Git is meant
>> to be decentralised, after all. ;)
>> 
>> Paul, to your points, Jan is chatting to infra about modifying our existing
>> setup so that comments are sent through to the list as well. I am crossing
>> my fingers that this is possible, and that it is reliable enough for us to
>> use. I am not sure how we're gonna get replies to be posted back, but if
>> there's an API, then I don't see why it can't be done.
>> 
> 
> Just to be clear, I think it'd be awesome if someone managed to get
> this working. I'm just saying that I'm a bit pessimistic here. I think
> we're agreeing here that getting email notices from GitHub PRs to the
> dev@ list would be a good step but that getting mailing list updates
> posted back to the PR is where the rubber meets the road. Without the
> latter to close the loop there I don't see this as being anything more
> than annoying to people attempting to contribute via PR as they won't
> see updates from the list.

GitHub already allows emailing to Issues and PRs one is participating in.
I’mma find out how we can make use of that.

> And I'd also point out that trying to have some sort of policy where
> we tell people to sign up for a GitHub account to be able to
> contribute to those discussions doesn't seem like a valid proposition
> to me.

Excellent point. I was gonna suggest that we can live with a one-way
sync for a transitional time, but this argument makes me reconsider.

Cheers
Jan
--




> 
>> If anyone wants to pitch in with this, please speak up. This would be a
>> great way to contribute to the Foundation. This script would likely be used
>> by all of the Apache TLPs over time. Decent way to maybe earn some browny
>> points too... ;)
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 March 2013 19:39, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
>>> <matt@sorensonbros.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ^ I opened that one (obviously(?))
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I suppose if I take the time to click through to your user account and
>>> compare your name to the one used to send this email. Though not all
>>> GitHub accounts have a real name anyway so its not always apparent
>>> who's contributing something even if I do go out of my way to figure
>>> out who is who.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18
>>>>> 
>>>>> These just happen to be two pull requests I looked at today, there are
>>>>> more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the one hand, this is great. Obviously. Any sort of constructive
>>>>> activity happening around CouchDB is great.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> thank you!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But on the other hand, this discussion is core development discussion,
>>> and
>>>>> should be happening on the dev list where everybody can see it.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure where you get that PR#43 is core dev at all, plz clarify?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Its a change to the source code repository.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> (This is foundational stuff for an Apache project. Community building
>>>>> should be focused around the mailing lists.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (I've already made it known that I don't agree with this at all)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I get that Github is useful for
>>>>> people, but we're not a Github project, so our activity should not be
>>>>> happening there.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't know what to suggest. Obviously, I think pull requests are
>>> great.
>>>>> And I think the forking model of Github is great, because it allows
>>> people
>>>>> to contribute more easily, and in a manner that suits them.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PR#43, for anyone that may have skipped the description and comments
>>>> thread there (or who may have commented and then deleted the comment
>>>> in a rush of "OMG-i-made-a-PR-comment-instead-of-sending-to-the-ML"
>>>> ASF policy loyalty silliness) is precisely about surfacing the Apache
>>>> CouchDB
>>>> contribution policy in a "github-official" manner that will make it far
>>>> more
>>>> obvious ***to githubbers*** in just the way githubbers have (or will)
>>> come
>>>> to expect!
>>>> 
>>>> IOW, it aims to greatly aid the very challenge that this email rant is
>>>> about.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But on the other hand, we shouldn't be having important development
>>>>> discussions in pull requests.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> disagree, again.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't mean the ASF is going
>>> to change one of their fundamental policies or that we as a project
>>> can start ignoring that policy.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The PR isn't even against the Apache CouchDB
>>>>> mirror. It's against a Cloudant fork! (So even less likely that folks
>>> are
>>>>> going to see it.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps one of the policies we could document is that discussion of pull
>>>>> requests must be brought to the list.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Again, could be accomplished in the manner PR#43 describes(!)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is, if a PR comes in to the Apache Github mirror, then we make a
>>>>> polite comment on the PR that points them to the mailing list thread
and
>>>>> asks them to participate in that forum, so the maximum amount of devs
>>> can
>>>>> see and contribute.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could also say that if you have a fork of CouchDB, and you're
>>> planning
>>>>> to contribute the work back to Apache CouchDB (as is the case with the
>>>>> Cloudant fork) that you do the same with any PRs that are made to your
>>>>> repos.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A sample template comment could be as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for the pull request!
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a mirror of the Apache CouchDB project, so many of the
>>> committers
>>>>> do not monitor it for comments. Instead of discussing this pull request
>>>>> here, I have started a thread on the [developer mailing list] and I
>>> invite
>>>>> you to participate!
>>>>> 
>>>>> [LINK TO MAILING LIST THREAD]
>>>>> 
>>>>> ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> Additionally, the mailing list thread, or the first reply to it, should
>>> CC
>>>>> the original author.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One alternative to this (which is a bit of a mess, I know) is to write
>>>>> an integration that copies Github comments to the mailing list thread,
>>> and
>>>>> mailing list posts to the PR. Not sure that would work with forks of
the
>>>>> main mirror, however.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts? Flames?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm speaking personally, and I know there are strong and varying
>>>> opinions on the subject among participants here.
>>>> 
>>>> I also know the CouchDB PMC leads have a strong desire to spur
>>>> involvement in the project, and nothing dooms my personal desire
>>>> to work towards contributing than some ill-explained ass-backwards
>>>> 90's era bureaucratic mandate that EVERYTHING be facilitated over
>>>> the ML.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> While various ASF policies can be dense and difficult to understand at
>>> times, the mailing list policies are pretty straight forward.
>>> Regardless of your personal feelings on email and mailing lists in
>>> general, the fact is they are the single most widely deployed and
>>> widely compatible interfaces to push notifications in existence.
>>> 
>>> To be a bit more specific on Noah's link:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
>>> 
>>> The fact is that Apache uses mailing lists for development. Any
>>> development discussion that is not on this mailing list did not happen
>>> as far as the project is concerned.
>>> 
>>>> In fact it is due to that policy and general ASF-iness that keeps me
>>>> closer to the sidelines. This is a hobby, at best, for me at this time,
>>>> and I already have no chance of keeping up with the ML activity.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Its important to point out that having a mailing list centric
>>> communication channel does not require contributors to read all emails
>>> on the list. Its quite acceptable to subscribe and ignore every thread
>>> that you don't care about. Even developers will skim threads or even
>>> skip uninteresting ones all together.
>>> 
>>>> I'd rather see the asf git become the archive mirror, quite frankly.
>>>> How many resources could the ASF preserve (or apply more
>>>> productively - development, conferences, promotion) by adopting
>>>> github infra formally (for starters).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> There are a lot of people that think this way and its been an opinion
>>> voiced on lots of mailing lists. Mostly by people that use GitHub.
>>> Suffice to say the ASF has roundly rejected this due to a long laundry
>>> list of reasons.
>>> 
>>>> And i'm not some 19-yro kid who grew up always thinking of email
>>>> as irrelevant legacy tech, I've been doing this awhile myself.
>>>> 
>>>> There's a lot to it. And, unsurprisingly, I don't care for essays in
>>> emails.
>>>> It's about the bazaar model. It's about signal-to-noise (for each
>>>> individual!).
>>>> It's about being able to subscribe to the topics you care about and not
>>> have
>>>> to wade through the noise of the topics you don't care about, just to
>>> find
>>>> those topics you do care about (because at some point, the value prop
>>>> just isn't worth it anymore). It's about *thinking like the web* and
>>>> **observable work**[1].
>>>> 
>>>> (is the ML observable? sure, in a sense, but barely)
>>>> 
>>>> It's about all of that and a whole lot more.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> NS
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> feedback always welcome of course, and thx for listening
>>>> --
>>>> matt
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://emjayess.net/think-like-jon-udell
>>> 
>>> I appreciate the desire to leverage the activity at GitHub and I think
>>> that's a goal that we should keep as a project but the thing we need
>>> to remember is that as awesome as GitHub is, there's definitely
>>> downsides to it as well.
>>> 
>>> There are plenty of projects not on GitHub and as much I as love
>>> GitHub I understand its not right for every project. And for people
>>> that really insist that GitHub is a panacea, I'll refer you to
>>> Torvald's rather colorful refutation of that position.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> NS


Mime
View raw message