ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikita Ivanov <nivano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Collaboration process at Ignite
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:59:31 GMT
Slack [+1]

--
Nikita Ivanov


On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> Thanks for the comments, Raul. I generally agree with all the points you
> have made. Additional comments are inline.
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Raul Kripalani <raulk@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I started contributing to Ignite a few weeks ago and I would like to
> raise
> > a few topics for discussion.
> >
> > 1) This project desperately needs an IRC channel. At this stage of the
> > project lifecycle open, ephemeral chit-chat is important. Ignite is
> trying
> > to get as many people involved in the project as possible and to build
> > relationships. Email is too heavy a tool for that.
> >
>
> I agree. I think the email has its obvious shortcomings and having a chat
> channel will definitely make it easier for everyone to communicate.
>
> Let's decide on Slack vs. IRC. Any preferences?
>
>
> > Contributors working on code who would like to shoot across a quick
> > question/doubt to the core team cannot do that right now. Forums are not
> > a place to ask questions like: "hey, is it ok to add a notNullOrEmpty
> method
> > to the GridArgumentCheck class?".
> >
> > This is even more relevant given the proportionally large amount of
> > committers associated to a single company at the moment.
> >
> > 2) At this point the community cannot be very picky with code style in
> > contributions. I don't want to generalise, but a spirit of gratitude vs.
> > one of stern demands would be appropriate. See for example this personal
> > contribution of mine [1]. No "thanks" to be found anywhere, just a "go
> read
> > the docs" and "by the way, we don't use this framework".
> >
> >
> Absolutely agree. I don't think this is a general trend within the
> community, but we should all be more courteous with our communication,
> especially when it comes to the new contributions.
>
>
>
> > This is not the ASF way – let alone for a project transitioning to a TLP.
> >
> > 3) The "Development Process" wiki page must be linked to from a notice
> > box in the Contribute page [2]. I haven't found a link, and if there is
> one,
> > it's not catching my attention.
> >
>
> Will add the links.
>
>
> > 4) You should not expect people to contribute code that adheres to your
> > specification unless you attach a check into the build. In the Camel
> > project we have a Maven profile -Pvalidate that runs a checkstyle
> > expressing our coding style. Contributors run this profile before
> > submitting a patch to us.
> >
>
> I think we should look into adding something similar to Ignite.
>
>
> > It doesn't make sense to ask a contributor to write code in a style they
> > don't like, just because someone else prefers it that way. Developers
> like
> > to write code in their own style, and then use a tool to adapt it to the
> > community standards.
> >
> > That said, I think there is an IntelliJ formatting template somewhere in
> > the source repo, but remember that not everybody uses IntelliJ. And there
> > may be a checkstyle file somewhere too, but it is not attached to the
> > build. Therefore, in practical terms, the community is not enforcing a
> > style other than by a Wiki page buried somewhere in the community – not
> > enough.
> >
>
> We should be enforcing it with the build, but I also like having the
> IntelliJ formatting in the project as well. We should add something similar
> for Eclipse (I don't think there is one yet).
>
>
> > 5) Merging pull requests from Github is not evil. There is no reason why
> to
> > impose the submission of a patch attached to a JIRA in my opinion. If you
> > are worried about regulatory/legal/IP aspects, I think the ASL license
> > headers at the top and the explicit action that the contributor takes to
> > send in the pull request is enough to grant authorisation. That's the way
> > we do it in Camel.
> >
>
> The main issue here is public TC builds. Whenever you attach a patch to the
> ticket, TC build gets automatically triggered. To my knowledge, there is
> work being done on having the same with pull requests:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1217
>
>
> > People like working with Github, and it's more convenient for everybody.
> In
> > Camel we even have a Github - JIRA integration whereby a bot comments
> > in the relevant ticket when a PR is submitted.
> >
> > Let's be embracing, not enforcing. At least at this stage.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/pull/11#issuecomment-129505860.
> > [2] https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/contribute.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > *Raúl Kripalani*
> > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> > Integration specialist
> > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message