I've started a new section to discuss proposals and current initiatives. I
know some of us have been working on some things but without much
coordination so far. It would be good to track these efforts so everyone
can comment on them.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:11 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems some time has passed here. Would some others like to read the
> document and comment? This is important stuff.
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:20 PM Krisztián Szűcs
> <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The current document greatly summarizes the current situation, but in
> > order to properly compare and eventually select a solution we need a
> > a detailed list of explicit features with some sort of classification,
> like
> > should/must have. For example our future CI system must support
> > "PRs from forks". After filling this table for the alternatives we can
> > have a much clearer picture.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:06 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I reviewed the document, thanks for putting it together! I think it
> > > captures most of the requirements and the challenges that we are
> > > currently facing. I think that anyone who is actively contributing to
> > > the project or merging pull requests should read this document since
> > > this affects all of us.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:55 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Neal for starting this discussion. I will review and comment.
> > > >
> > > > I will say that as a maintainer the current situation is very nearly
> > > > intolerable. As by far and away the most prolific merger-of-PRs [1],
> > > > I've been negatively affected by the long queueing times and delayed
> > > > feedback cycles. The project would not be able to accommodate 2x or
> 5x
> > > > the volume of PRs that we have now, and so it is urgent that we
> > > > develop a scalable cross-platform CI solution that is under this
> > > > community's control and does not require a high maintenance burden,
> so
> > > > if we need to increase the amount of resources dedicated to CI we can
> > > > unilaterally do so.
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://gist.github.com/wesm/78bfda4cef3b23a5193cf4fb8a6540fb
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:38 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > Over the last few months, I've seen a lot of frustration and
> > > > > discussion around the shortcomings of our current CI. I'm also
> seeing
> > > > > debate over a few possible solutions; unfortunately, the debates
> tend
> > > > > not to resolve in a clear, decisive way, and we end up having the
> same
> > > > > debates repeatedly.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience, this pattern often happens when there's not a
> shared
> > > > > understanding of the problems we're trying to solve--it's hard to
> > > > > agree on a solution if we don't agree on the problem. To help us
> reach
> > > > > consensus on the problems, I've started a document:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fToW48TO-B9T8VRi0_Z30fDJkjOrBisc-Fr8Epl50s4/edit#
> > > > >
> > > > > Please have a look and add/edit freely. I've tried to capture the
> > > > > arguments I've seen go by the mailing list, as well as some from my
> > > > > own experience, but if I've mischaracterized anything, please
> rectify.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know several people have been exploring some potential solutions,
> > > > > and I hope this document can help us begin to discuss their
> relative
> > > > > merits more objectively and practically.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neal
> > >
>

Reply via email to