forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: Proposal for Forrest-Cocoon-Lenya commit access
Date Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:06:46 GMT
addi wrote:
> Ok, I am not a PMC member nor committer so ignore/listen as you like.

That makes no difference. You are a community member
and we each listen to each other. By the way, when it
comes time to vote on this topic, then please do:

>  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.

We all understand.

> 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.

It does certainly make it a bit easier, with being
able to see a lack, make a fix, test it, commit it
and get on with the next thing. Being a "committer"
is about enabling the person to be more productive.
Being a "PMC member" is another topic.

> But shouldn't we be tracking what we are doing in JIRA anyway?

The issue tracker is certainly useful. Remind us
all of things that need to be done but no-one has yet
started to address. Hopefully declaring that will
encourage a new developer to become involved.
Also might be good for co-ordinating some complex tasks.

For many issues, a committer will just do it and
not need to record the issue in Jira. Efficiency.
Watching the commits mail-list is important for

Subversion is where activity is really tracked.
Hopefully with descriptive commit messages and
reference to Jira issues when needed. Doing 'svn log'
then shows the reasons for changes.

The other place for tracking is the project Changes/Status
file. Each major change should also be listed there.

Any project would ideally track everything in an
issue tracker, but in a opensource project we do
need to cut corners.

>  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.

Simply three minutes that could be spent elsewhere.

>  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).

Ah, it is definitely not intended that way.
Sorry that it has become garbled.

> 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.

Not just you, others have expressed that too.

> 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.

Not to be taken lightly - correct.

> > > 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.

Well i for one, don't think that it has anything to do
with good will gestures. We don't need that at ASF.
However we do want to build stronger communities and
stronger connections between projects. So if there
is a way to assist that, then great.


View raw message