Git and jira , nothing specific On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 at 12:51, Derek Chen-Becker <de...@chen-becker.org> wrote:
> I think it's fine to state it explicitly rather than making it an > assumption. Are we tracking any usage of internals in the codebase > currently? > > Cheers, > > Derek > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 6:30 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> “ A quick heads up to the dev list with the jira would be sufficient for >> anybody interested in discussing it further to comment on the jira.” >> >> Agreed, I did’t mean voting but more or less we have the lazy consensus >> or sharing concerns. Discussing them on a ticket should be enough but it >> needs to happen. Also, it shouldn’t be more often than adding dependencies >> I guess. >> >> JDK team is only closing more and more internals and warning us about >> potential breakages. I want to prevent us from urgent fixing in patch >> releases and to ease the maintenance. >> >> I think ensuring that it is clearly documented why an exception is >> acceptable and what options were considered will be of benefit for >> maintenance. We can revise in time what has changed. >> >> “ . Unless absolutely needed we should avoid accessing the internals. >> Folks on this project should understand why. We can make the dangers of >> this explicit in our contributor documentation. ” >> +1 >> >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 at 1:26, Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Personally not opposed to this. However, this is something that should >>> be vetted closely by the reviewers. Unless absolutely needed we should >>> avoid accessing the internals. Folks on this project should understand why. >>> We can make the dangers of this explicit in our contributor documentation. >>> However, requiring an entire dev list discussion around it seems >>> unnecessary. A quick heads up to the dev list with the jira would be >>> sufficient for anybody interested in discussing it further to comment on >>> the jira. WDYT? >>> >>> Dinesh >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 8:31 AM, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> >>> Some time ago we added a note to the project Cassandra Code Style: >>> “New dependencies should not be included without community consensus >>> first being obtained via a [DISCUSS] thread on the >>> dev@cassandra.apache.org mailing list” >>> >>> I would like to suggest also to add a point around accessing JDK >>> internals. Any patch that suggests accessing internals and/or adding even >>> more add-opens/add-exports to be approved prior commit on the mailing list. >>> >>> It seems to me the project can only benefit of this visibility. If >>> something is accepted as an exception, we need to have the right >>> understanding and visibility of why; in some cases maybe to see for >>> alternatives, to have follow up tickets opened, ownership taken. In my >>> opinion this will be very helpful for maintaining the codebase. >>> >>> If others agree with that I can add a sentence to the Code Style. Please >>> let me know what you think. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ekaterina >>> >>> >>> > > -- > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Derek Chen-Becker | > | GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker and | > | https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org | > | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC | > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > >
