Separate JIRA is enough enough, separate dev list.. maybe. I don't see much purpose in trying to organize into a hierarchy, what problem are you actually solving here? It sounds like you don't trust folks who work on the driver to not commit random code to Cassandra, is that the case? If that's not a concern, I don't know what we gain by a hierarchy other than complexity.
Every committer doesn't have to work on every part of the project, nor be aware of the daily activity. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:03 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > +1, this is essentially my position, and I agree with the baseline > requirements for a merged project. I'm not trying to rule anything out, > just wondering what the optimal division is. > > I think from the user point of view we can hopefully achieve the same > appearance with or without the same project governance. The goal should > absolutely be to have "official" drivers, and close association. We can > link them directly in the Cassandra site either way. The question is only > how the projects are best structured. > > It seems to me that drivers benefit from an umbrella structure for their > governance and for discussing their commonalities and direction, but also > need their own distinct lists and Jira. So we'd be talking about going > from a flat hierarchy to perhaps a three-tier structure, something like: > > PMC > / \ > Drivers Cassandra > / | \ \ > Driver1 Dvr.2 Dvr.3 ... Sidecar? > > Since drivers are functionally very different to the database server and > its accoutrements, there will likely be very different kinds of > discussions, with completely different release schedules - hopefully mostly > around programmatic API UX, client-side performance, etc. It feels to me > intuitively like there is benefit in keeping distinct the projects with > different focuses and technical problems, so that discussions more easily > can happen simultaneously at the design and decision-making levels. > > This might not only help avoid fragmentation of the decision-making in > this community, but also help unify decision-making across the drivers. By > having a decision-making body whose purview is only drivers, we might > better emphasise collaboration between those drivers, since that is the > body's only function. > > I'm not staking this out as a strongly held prior conviction, just that I > see these problems and think we have to consider this carefully upfront, as > I don't think this kind of decision is easy to revisit. > > > > On 27/04/2020, 10:51, "Sylvain Lebresne" <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Fwiw, I agree with the concerns raised by Benedict, and think we should > carefully think about how this is handled. Which isn't not a rejection > of > the donation in any way. > > Drivers are not small projects, and the majority of their day to day > maintenance is unrelated to the server (and the reverse is true). > > From the user point of view, I think it would be fabulous that > Cassandra > appears like one project with a server and some official drivers, with > one > coherent website and documentation for all. I'm all for striving for > that. > > Behind the scenes however, I feel tings should be setup so that some > amount > of > separation remains between server and whichever drivers are donated and > accepted, or I'm fairly sure things would get messy very quickly[1]). > In my > mind that means *at a minimum*: > - separate JIRA projects. > - dedicated _dev_ (and commits) mailing lists. > > But it's also worth thinking whether a single pool of committers/PMC > members is > desirable. > > Tbc, I'm not sure what is the best way to achieve this within the > constraint of > the Apache fundation, and maybe I'm just stating the obvious here. > > > [1] fwiw, I say this as someone that at some points in time was > simultaneously > somewhat actively involved in both Cassandra and the DataStax Java > driver. > > -- > Sylvain > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:54 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Do you have some examples of issues? > > > > So, to explain my thinking: I believe there is value in most > contributors > > being able to know and understand a majority of what the project > > undertakes. Many people track a wide variety of activity on the > project, > > and whether they express an opinion they probably form one and will > involve > > themselves if they consider it important to do so. I worry that > importing > > several distinct and only loosely related projects to the same > governance > > and communication structures has a strong potential to undermine that > > capability, as people begin to assume that activity and > decision-making is > > unrelated to them - and if that happens I think something important > is lost. > > > > The sidecar challenges this already but seems hopefully manageable: > it is > > a logical extension of Cassandra, existing primarily to plug gaps in > > Cassandra's own functionality, and features may migrate to Cassandra > over > > time. It is likely to have releases closely tied to Cassandra > itself. > > Other subprojects are so far exclusively for consumption by the > Cassandra > > project itself, and are all naturally coupled. > > > > Drivers however are inherently arms-length endeavours: we publish a > > protocol specification, and driver maintainers implement it. They > are > > otherwise fairly independent, and while a dialogue is helpful it > does not > > need to be controlled by a single entity. Many drivers will > continue to be > > controlled by others, as they have been until now. We're of course > able to > > ensure there's a strong overlap of governance, which I think would > be very > > helpful, and something Curator and Zookeeper seem not to have > managed. > > > > Looking at the Curator website, it also seems to pitch itself as a > > relatively opinionated product, and much more than a driver. I hope > the > > recipe for conflict in our case is much more limited given the > functional > > scope of a driver - and anyway better avoided with more integrated, > but > > still distinct governance. > > > > That's not to say I don't see some value in the project controlling > the > > driver directly, I just worry about the above. > > > > > > > > On 22/04/2020, 21:25, "Nate McCall" <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:37 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I welcome the donation, and hope we are able to accept all of > the > > > drivers. This is really great news IMO. > > > > > > I do however wonder if the project may be accumulating too > many > > > sub-projects? I wonder if it's time to think about splitting, > and > > perhaps > > > incubating a project for the drivers? > > > > > > > This is a legit concern and good question, but I think this is > more a > > natural evolution of growing a project. There is precedent for > this in > > Spark, Beam, Hadoop and others who have a number of different > > repositories > > under the general project umbrella. > > > > What I would like to avoid is a situation like with Apache > Curator and > > Apache Zookeeper. The former being a zookeeper client donation > from > > Netflix > > that came in as a top level project. From the peanut gallery, it > seems > > like > > that has been less than ideal a couple of times in the past > > coordinating > > releases, trademarks and such with separate project management. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
