zipkin-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cole <>
Subject on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2019 01:16:45 GMT
Hi, team.

I'm concerned about lack of participation on the zipkin-api vote. I'm
concerned it might be because people expect a one-line command to work
flawlessly, and they saw the scary output I pasted, and aren't
interested in trying.

The scary output is about things that are not required for ASF
verification. For example, there is no requirement for congruence
between a repo and a dist, and there's certainly no requirement for
unit tests inside a source dist.

Concretely speaking, I think any "extra steps" we place on ourselves
should be non-blocking and non error causing. If they do accidentally
cause errors, please consider it a glitch and move on to vote. Voting
helps folks out of the task of RM and allows us to proceed.

Most important example is the assumption that compiling IDL stubs must
be done automatically and also by maven. There is no such requirement
in ASF. It just says people can test, aka build the stubs, if they
have the tools, ex protoc or thrift compiler, or swagger codegen. It
is quite a reach to think a multi-language IDL must include automation
that is driven by maven (a java project) for example.

We have a lot of votes right now and most are volunteers.. release
management locks someone up until votes not only proceed here, but
also into the IPMC. IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool
polish. Everyone who is on the IPMC can vote, if you have a couple
minutes, please help vote this one.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message