couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Comments threads on Github
Date Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:23:12 GMT
Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF
project.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> I see Paul's argument, but I don't think it's a blocker.
>
> In my head, I imagined something like this:
>
> 1. PR is opened
> 2. ASF script sends notification to ML
> 3. Someone spots it on the ML, goes to Github, posts a comment
> 4. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML
> 5. Original PR author responds
> 6. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML
> 7. etc...
>
> Each interaction is happening on Github, and what we're seeing is a record
> of activity on dev.
>
> Compare this to how we work with JIRA.
>
> Seems perfectly doable to me.
>
> And so what if people have to sign up for a Github account? If they are
> really so against it, post something to the list, and ask someone else to
> forward on your message, or what have you. I really see no basis for
> objection here.
>
>
>
>
> On 15 March 2013 20:43, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> NS

Mime
View raw message