geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:47:43 GMT


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>> I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
>> nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
>> here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
>> clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
>> been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
>> talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it 
>> occurred.
> 
> Um...  OK.  I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was
> that big a deal.  If it bothered you, I'm sorry.  Let's talk about it.
> What do you recommend?  The constraints I see are that is should be
> able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code.  Do you agree?
> Disagree?  What do you recommend for a hosting site?
> 
>> This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
>> Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
>> into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
>> others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.
> 
> I find this extra-confusing.  I took a piece of Geronimo which was
> hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it
> a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or
> not as you please).  And you feel that as the primary author of the
> code, you should have been consulted?  That I'm somehow using your own
> hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a
> whole?  I'm sorry for offending you.  But I don't understand your
> objection.
> 
>> Although
>> nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
>> have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
>> example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
>> discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
>> ethical and respect issue, IMHO.
> 
> I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples,
> LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution.  The Java 5 stack trace
> in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been
> working hard to slim down our distributions.  I am pretty sure we
> agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while.
> But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is
> showing disrespect.  We're all in this together, and it's not your
> code or my code, it's our code.  I promise, if you make the console
> more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be
> offended, I'll buy you a beer.
> 
>> As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
>> discussion with others before taking action.
> 
> Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion.  Sorry it wasn't
> sooner, but better late than never, eh?
> 
>> Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
>> after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
>> with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
>> to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
>> stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a 
>> bit.
> 
> Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to
> the list.  :)  Sorry.
> 
>> I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
>> here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
>> by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.
>>
>> This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
>> especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
>> speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
>> understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
>> is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
>> should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
>> (positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
>> attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
>> been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
>> not everyone was there.
>>
>> We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
>> dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
>> Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.
> 
> I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not
> invited, Geir and others.  True, it would have been smart to arrange a
> dial-in.  Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved
> as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be
> overlooked either.  If the outcome of this is that no one should have
> a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that
> (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable).  I talked to
> another committer at a different conference recently, and we
> brainstormed some ideas for improving the product.  Was that wrong?
> Where's the line?  Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't?
> 

I think two or 50 is fine.  The issue was that some people wanted to join and were not invited.
 Its 
not a number issue.  its an openess issue.

> If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it.
> 
> Perhaps we should organize a series of Geronimo community meetings,
> throughout the year, so we can address issues (like this) closer to
> when they come up, and there would be less motivation to set up
> individual meetings at conferences and things.  Would that help?
> Would you help organize such a thing?  I would.  We can try for
> something in Barcelona or Dublin, if that's not too soon.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please 
>> elaborate
>> >> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> >> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless 
>> dependencies,
>> >> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, 
>> the
>> >> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product 
>> was
>> >> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> >> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> >> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> >> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, 
>> and I
>> >> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental 
>> and
>> >> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> >> > move forward.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> >> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If 
>> there
>> >> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> >> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web 
>> site, etc
>> >> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I 
>> missed
>> >> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> >> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a 
>> week.  I
>> >> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> >> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> >> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> >> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> >> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, 
>> get it
>> >> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 
>> hours is
>> >> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't 
>> feel
>> >> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> >> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 
>> and see
>> >> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> >> > try something different for the release after.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >    Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.
 No
>> >> one can
>> >> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid
out
>> >> there.  And
>> >> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines

>> we're
>> >> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> >> (i.e., a
>> >> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map
may
>> >> help on
>> >> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be
a 
>> popular
>> >> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are
a
>> >> volunteer
>> >> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> >> > immensely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap
is
>> >> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt

>> has
>> >> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> >> things
>> >> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> >> group
>> >> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.
 I
>> >> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement
on
>> >> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> >> panacea.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> >> expect
>> >> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each 
>> other in
>> >> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then
we
>> >> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have

>> a long
>> >> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jeff
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would

>> be a
>> >> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline

>> will
>> >> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular

>> feature
>> >> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> >> determining
>> >> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> >> difficult.
>> >> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bruce
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message