That sounds great, Animesh. Thank you!
On 3 May 2013 19:59, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>wrote: > Yes I will merge primary and secondary maintainers into one column. I also > started a separate thread yesterday on JIRA component based filters and > email subscriptions so that whoever is interested can be notified on > potential opportunities to work on. When you get a chance please review > and provide feedback > > Animesh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nsla...@apache.org] > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:40 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers? > > > > Yep, I thought so. > > > > So can we just remove this column, and have a single column then? > > > > > > On 3 May 2013 19:38, Animesh Chaturvedi > > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>wrote: > > > > > Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1] > > > with following comment > > > > > > [Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use > > > @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based > > > on maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community > > > using auto-assignment. The community argument wins. > > > > > > > > > Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be > > > dropped and just call it maintainers or other inviting name. > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Einc > > > ubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from > > > :"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1 > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nsla...@apache.org] > > > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers? > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to: > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maint > > > > ai > > > > ners+Per+Component > > > > > > > > I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" > > > > and "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage > > > > contribution. So > > > I > > > > thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it. > > > > > > > > If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis > > > could be one > > > > person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if > > > > you > > > wanted to. > > > > It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested > > > parties. > > > > > > > > If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this > > > piece of code > > > > is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that > person. > > > Or > > > > perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How > > > > does it work? > > > > > > > > (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or > > > BFDLs. > > > > It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission > > > culture > > > > where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author > > > > names in source code file. We never want someone to look at > > > > something, with an idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I > > > > better not, this isn't > > > mine.") > > > > > > > > I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found: > > > > > > > > On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi > > > > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects > > > > > for a specific module add their name as maintainer of that module > > > > > in component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute > > > > > wiki on > > > > this process . > > > > > > > > > > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as > > > > > community we ended up not addressing and given that number of > > > > > unassigned issues is high % should we consider auto-assign based > > > > > on the maintainers list? This is still not optimal since > > > > > auto-assign will go to primary maintainer and secondary > > > > > maintainers still need to pull in defects but is better than one > person > > triaging defects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome > > > > of > > > that > > > > thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any > > > > other Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no > > > > need for this "primary maintainer" column.) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > NS > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > NS > -- NS
