lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] 0.1.0 release prep
Date Sat, 21 May 2011 01:15:17 GMT
Hey Marvin,

> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:56:05PM -0700, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> OK, let me be more clear and concrete -- I'm will cut it before or at the
>> latest, by EOD Sunday. That's what I meant.
> Thanks, Chris.

No probs.

> I'm concerned by the somewhat personal tone in the heated exchange that went
> past just before this, such as when Joe said, "No more stalling Chris", and
> when Chris responded, "Get over yourself Joe".  Chris's good intentions and
> investment in Lucy's success are not in doubt, and there's no way he would be
> purposefully "stalling".  I don't think Joe meant to imply that, but the
> wording was regrettable.  And regarding the rejoinder, dialing down a response
> instead of ratcheting up -- or simply not responding at all -- is an extremely
> valuable skill that ideally we would like to see our forum participants
> deploy.  Both Apache at large and the KinoSearch community that moved here
> have long traditions of keeping things constructive that we should all strive
> to uphold.

There's some missing context here I'd like to share with you. Joe and I know each other and
can handle each other's barbs. I appreciate your concern for the situation, but at the same
time just to let you know -- email is a horrible form of communication. It conveys very little
context, very little emotion (as the "emotion" part behind it can be interpreted differently
by just about everyone that reads it), and even worse, it's not instantaneous, so distilling
emotional meaning or personal meaning from it is an exercise I try not to engage in.

Joe was giving me a kick in the rear to actually step up and commit to getting it done, or
step out of the way. That, is most certainly, the Apache way as I understand it. His colorful
language, and personality, is also the Apache way. My response, colorful as it may have been,
was certainly something I'd save for a particular context and not use in all of them. It's
really just a path we all have to navigate.

> That said, I'm grateful for Joe's energy and desire to move us forward, and
> the admirable responsiveness in Chris's followup, above.  I'm relieved and
> happy that the end result has turned out to be people resolving their
> differences and arriving at a concrete plan acceptable to everyone.

Thanks, me too!

> Moving on to another important aspect of the release...
> Chris, the last item on the ReleaseGuide for the RM has says this about the
> release announcement email:
>    Use the entry in the CHANGES file as the basis for your email. 
> That will work fine for all releases going forward, but it's not ideal for
> 0.1.0.  The CHANGES entry for this release is minimalist, just mentioning the
> software grant.

I'll address this in my follow-up email to your other email, but to set the context here,
I wouldn't agree with that. VOTE emails including changes from CHANGES files isn't exactly
the way I've seen VOTE emails for releases in any of the projects I've involved with at Apache
since 2005 and it's been quite a few. 

I've pretty much used the same type of template I used in the RC email and it's worked out
fine. What, specifically, do you find lacking in it?

> As a substitute, I think we should work up a draft release announcement on the
> dev list over the next couple days using an enumeration of Lucy's features as
> a starting point.

+1 to a release announcement, but -1 to that release announcement being the same thing as
a VOTE RC email. That's up to the RM.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message