forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From addi <a...@rocktreesky.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for Forrest-Cocoon-Lenya commit access
Date Sat, 03 Sep 2005 02:09:05 GMT
Ok, I am not a PMC member nor committer so ignore/listen as you like.  Also if 
I seem riled up, please take my general attitude with a grain of salt as 
"Katrina/lack of response to" has gotten me rather upset lately.  I do not 
mean to offend at all.

On Friday September 02 2005 8:42 pm, David Crossley wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > Anyway, i just want to ensure that we all, especially
> > > our new PMC members, understand the implications.
> >
> > This new PMC member doesn't see the value in it as I attempted to
> > express in my earlier mail on this topic.  I don't believe in the
> > "field of dreams" ("if you build it, they will come") -- "if you give
> > access, they will contribute".  Truth is, people contribute because of
> > their own personal interest not just because there's an easy
> > opportunity.
>
> That is the way that i see it too.
>
> >  I can only imagine that for an existing committer on
> > another project, the bar would likely be set pretty low for a
> > committership offer anyway -- so asking them to add a JIRA issue and
> > and contribute a patch to determine whether they're truly committed to
> > forrest or just stumbled across a couple bugs isn't a great burden for
> > someone already familiar with the process anyway.

I totally agree with this.  Thorsten points out that this takes time, but 
seriously, for someone familiar with the patch submission process this is 
really minimal in my mind.  I am not a committer and maybe committers are 
used to the "easy access" to do things so the idea of having to go through 
JIRA seems like such a burden, I don't know.  But shouldn't we be tracking 
what we are doing in JIRA anyway?  What is the huge burden to actually create 
an issue and submit a patch?  If someone is not willing to take 3 minutes to 
help the project to that level then, well, it seems kinda like spoiled 
behavior to me.  I mean, lots of people who submit patches don't have tons of 
free time to just sit around and create JIRA issues and upload patches for 
Forrest.  Sorry if I'm ranting but I do feel that it is coming across *a 
little bit* as though submitting patches is somehow "beneath" or not as 
effective as all the hard work that many, many people without commit access 
do here regularly (and I'm not referring to myself at all).

The concept of committing and PMC being a combined responsibilty makes sense 
to me and committing without "commitment to the project" - aka PMC - still 
strikes me as odd.  But that's just me.  I wonder if not being a committer 
makes me more sensitive or aware of this line, since it seems like a big line 
to cross and not taken lightly, per our recent discussions on this.

>
> I have a personal example on that. We had a need
> in Forrest for another Apache Ant task. It was easy to
> develop and test it here, then contribute it back.
> If i had such commit access to Ant, i would not have
> used it anyway. I would still send a patch, complete
> with test case and doc. Let them handle it.
>
> > Opening the doors because we trust folks to know their own limitations
> > sounds unnecessary to me.  Open the doors because we trust your
> > self-control?   I mean, I suppose there's no harm given that if they
> > don't have self control commits could be reverted and svn locked down,
> > but what's it buy us?
> >
> > I suppose when I came on I read the roles and merit stuff, emails from
> > existing PMC members on these sort of topics and came to a certain
> > conclusion and respect for it.  Now it seems like we're changing
> > "merit - earned by consistent contributions" and "committer==someone
> > who is committed to a particular project".
>
> We want to make sure that we don't change any of that,
> which is why we are discussing this all before rushing
> to a decision.
>
> >  I mean, based on these
> > definitions, I don't understand why Lenya for instance, votes me a
> > committer on their project.
>
> Thorsten corrected that mis-understanding.
>
> > Between your hypothetical and Nicola's Ant experience, I just don't
> > see the value in it -- is it just a "good will" jesture or what?

Again, I am agreeing with Tim here, because I am really curious to know, not 
because I am trying to be a jerk.  If this is really about "good will" and 
building a feeling of combined community so they will want to help with this 
integration of Forrest and Lenya, then call a spade a spade.  I just don't 
buy the "low-entry barrier" stuff honestly.

- Addi



Mime
View raw message