ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Collaboration process at Ignite
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:43:20 GMT
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:59PM, Nikita Ivanov wrote:
> Slack [+1]

Both IRC and, esp. slack are tends to be a huge nuisance and 
I don't have time for either. So I don't care one way or another.

> 
> --
> 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
View raw message