Tamas, Il giorno mer 23 nov 2022 alle ore 14:22 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> ha scritto: > > Romain, > > Ok, I accept your response. > > Would be interested about feedback for the rest of 152 projects... :) > (actually not, is rhetorical really, just shows my point) > > As I still stand with my conclusion: "Maven might be quite atypical ASF > project by juggling with many more artifacts than others". > > Is Maven really a "typical" ASF project? How it relates to others by: > - number of reposes used (actually irrelevant, like svn vs git etc) > - more importantly, number of different (!) artifacts released per project? > > But I will stop here and finish my attempt to speed up releases, let it be > 72h. > (despite my gut telling it is wrong, at least for some of those among the > 152 artifacts we juggle).
I think that maybe we could try to merge some repositories. It is cool that Maven is so "modular", but I am not sure how much is it really "useful" to need to release so many pieces all together. We could keep the plugins as independent projects and most of the "shared" components collapsed into "maven core". Please note that I know that this has been discussed before, but....maybe sometimes it is better to restart a discussion, because the community changes, new ideas, new energy..... I don't have pointers to previous discussions... we can start a brand new thread if you want Enrico > > Thanks > T > > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:05 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Le sam. 19 nov. 2022 à 15:23, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > > écrit : > > > > > Romain, > > > > > > Who talks here about "release without feedback"? > > > > > > > Well there are two kind of consequences to reduce release time (making a > > minimum a maximum): > > > > * You drop part of the opportunity of feedback you had (by construction) > > * You enable a 5mn release since you can "easily" agree with a small set of > > people (literally 3) to release without asking anyone else > > > > These two looks bad from my small and far window. > > > > > > > > > > Or explain to me what you mean by "feedback" (as obviously you don't > > count > > > the mandatory votes as "feedback"). > > > > > > > I do count it obviously but they are not the most important community wise. > > User feedbacks we saw in last releases (several non-binding ones) are key > > for the community and ASF is only about community at the end, nothing else. > > > > > > > > > > And, to help me in better understanding, can you point me to any example > > of > > > "feedback" (in your understanding) that happened on some Maven release? > > > > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg126418.html > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg125247.html > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg120439.html > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg120452.html > > ... > > > > We often get non-binding feedback, they are likely the most valuable and > > limiting the voting period too strictly sounds like dropping them (they > > often happen +4 days after the opening of the vote. > > > > Side note: I'd like to emphasis once again that our delay induced by the > > voting period, even if we put 10 days, does not prevent to release the > > whole maven ecosystem in 10 days so I would really love to refine the goal > > of changing this widely adopted practise at asf which put people at the > > center of our production and not software, we are *not* about software and > > Apache is not a place to put software before people IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > T > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 2:55 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Agree asf enables to release without feedback....question is not if it > > is > > > > legal IMHO but is it what maven wants to do for thz mentionned reasons? > > > > > > > > For me it would clearly be negative - even at asf level - and the sign > > > the > > > > project does not belong to asf anymore (people first) so ultimately > > means > > > > it should find another home. Luckily we are not there :). > > > > > > > > Le sam. 19 nov. 2022 à 12:50, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > > > Let's all step back a little bit. Let's go back to my original > > > > "postulate". > > > > > > > > > > - release vote SHOULD take 72h > > > > > - release vote CANNOT be vetoed (only release mgr can cancel it) > > > > > - release vote MUST reach PMC quorum > > > > > > > > > > Hence, in my reading, the above set of constraints does not conflicts > > > > with > > > > > this one below: > > > > > > > > > > => release vote is "done done" in a moment release has a PMC quorum > > > > within > > > > > 72h. > > > > > > > > > > And IMO this conclusion does not violate anything from those > > > constraints > > > > > above. As I see, none of the responses I got tackled my original > > > > deduction > > > > > (simplified above) :) > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Or to rephrase: when a person announces the release (we usually first > > > > > inform teammates about it on ML or Slack), person KNOWS he needs to > > > > commit > > > > > for upcoming 72+ hours, so he usually tries to "choose wisely" (with > > > all > > > > > the negative effects) -- what can be a good a reason to rather > > postpone > > > > > (not now due this, not then due that...). My point is simply, that > > the > > > > > process hinders us to "release often, release early", as the > > developer > > > > will > > > > > "choose wisely" WHEN he can commit his 72+ hours, hence the outcome > > is > > > > what > > > > > we have today: slow pace. > > > > > > > > > > Because there are so many things so few people checking can miss. > > > > Release, > > > > > and in a day 5k people may try it and find critical issues and > > within a > > > > > couple days you may fix a handful of serious issues because you can > > get > > > > so > > > > > much more feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > > PS: +1 on "reduce the number of git reposes" but this is a > > digression. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 1:08 AM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I also fail to see how the 72 hours period is the root cause of any > > > > issue > > > > > > you have. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are a few possible changes that could improve the release > > > > process: > > > > > > * Releases can be done in parallel or in batches. > > > > > > * If the fact that master branches are broken while releasing, we > > > > could > > > > > > certainly create branches and release from them. But we do usually > > > > work > > > > > > with PRs, so you can branch your PR from not the latest master and > > > work > > > > > > from that. > > > > > > * We could also (but I think this has been discussed) reduce the > > > > number > > > > > > of git repos and always release things in batches, this could > > reduce > > > > the > > > > > > friction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 18 nov. 2022 à 22:48, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net > > > > > > a > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > damn me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 16848 hours = 702 days = almost TWO YEARS of Maven releases just > > to > > > > > build > > > > > > > Maven itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, if you consider all apache artifacts (almost all, unsure is > > > > there > > > > > > > other in different groupId) > > > > > > > [cstamas@blondie local (master %)]$ find * -type f -name > > "*.jar" | > > > > > grep > > > > > > > "commons-" | wc -l > > > > > > > 45 > > > > > > > [cstamas@blondie local (master %)]$ find * -type f -name > > "*.jar" | > > > > > grep > > > > > > > "org/apache" | wc -l > > > > > > > 263 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In total, 308 JARs = 22176 hours = 924 days = 2,5 years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:30 PM Tamás Cservenák < > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, and understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But let me step back a bit: > > > > > > > > ASF (as it all started around httpd) as a foundation hosts MANY > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > wildly different projects, and those projects usually have a > > > > handful > > > > > > > (few, > > > > > > > > when compared to Maven) of "deliverables" or "artifacts" being > > > > > > released. > > > > > > > Or > > > > > > > > in other words (and am not trying to lessen their complexity or > > > nor > > > > > to > > > > > > > > present Maven as something "special" here), most of ASF > > projects > > > > have > > > > > > > few, > > > > > > > > very few deliverables (again, I am talking about the majority, > > > > > correct > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > if I am wrong). Really, are there any statistics about: > > > > > > > > - number of reposes used per ASF project > > > > > > > > - number of different (!) artifact releases done per project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maven on the other hand, while id DOES also have ONE > > > "downloadable" > > > > > > item > > > > > > > > on download page (https://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) we > > all > > > > know > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > story does not end there: it is known to "download the whole > > > > > internet", > > > > > > > > just to run Maven "mvn clean verify" it will download zillion > > of > > > > > > plugins > > > > > > > > and their dependant artifacts (and I did not even mention 3rd > > > > party, > > > > > > non > > > > > > > > ASF plugins). So, Maven, as a "deliverable" or "product" is > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > one ZIP file you see on the download page. ASF Maven project > > has > > > > many > > > > > > > > interconnected reposes/artifacts/releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what I want to say: is it possible that ASF "way" works for > > > > > > "typical" > > > > > > > > projects, while Maven is more like "atypical"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, to make my example more concrete: > > > > > > > > 1. I checked out master of maven from > > > > http://github.com/apache/maven > > > > > > > > 2. built it w/ pristine local repo > > > > > > > > 3. and run some stats on it: > > > > > > > > 4. > > > > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/ee2bba03f61d09fa3f5e9c57844207b7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This simply means that for the end user, the "experience of ASF > > > > > Maven" > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > literally 1 (that on download page) + 233 = 234 releases. And > > it > > > is > > > > > all > > > > > > > > very interconnected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, I just downloaded 16848 hours :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM David Jencks < > > > > > david.a.jen...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> You are free to do your own research. I’ve seen plenty of > > “but > > > we > > > > > > want > > > > > > > >> the convenience of <72hr releases” discussions over the years, > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> feedback I’ve seen is consistently that the reason for the > > > > “should” > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > >> than “must” is to account for emergency security patches etc, > > > not > > > > > > normal > > > > > > > >> releases. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> David Jencks > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Nov 18, 2022, at 11:54 AM, Tamás Cservenák < > > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > As I wrote, we did have examples of changes + cascading, it > > is > > > > > okay. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > But I don't agree with your statement about the board, as > > they > > > > > > > >> themselves > > > > > > > >> > state "should" not "must" for 72h. If it does not cut with > > > them, > > > > > > they > > > > > > > >> > should modify the refd page(s). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > And it's not "we're impatient" either, part of the response > > > for > > > > > that > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > >> > "hasty changes" canned response. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Simply put: > > > > > > > >> > - people see releases as a chore, as some "burden" that > > needs > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > >> > once in a while (see refd Slack messages in 1st mail), and > > > when > > > > it > > > > > > > >> comes to > > > > > > > >> > be done, "let's do it when it's worth". We have MANY user > > > > > questions > > > > > > on > > > > > > > >> ML > > > > > > > >> > of type "when is X released? As the issue [the user is > > > > interested > > > > > > in] > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> > fixed". And we have too many "dropped balls" in our court. > > > IMHO, > > > > > > > >> modifying > > > > > > > >> > the process (to take less than 72+2h) is one step toward > > > making > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > >> > less painful, less blocker. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Fun fact: maven project consists of (not sure of exact > > count, > > > > just > > > > > > > >> > guessing) 150+ repositories (GH on ASF org gives 153 when I > > > type > > > > > in > > > > > > > >> > "maven-" in the repo search bar). This is a LOT. If we'd, > > for > > > > some > > > > > > > >> reason, > > > > > > > >> > start releasing all of those in 72h windows, it would be > > 10800 > > > > > > hours, > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > >> > 450 days, more than a year. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 8:34 PM David Jencks < > > > > > > > david.a.jen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Which developers have to pause what activities? > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> From previous discussions elsewhere, I’m strongly of the > > > > opinion > > > > > > that > > > > > > > >> < 72 > > > > > > > >> >> hr release votes are intended only for emergency security > > > fixes > > > > > and > > > > > > > >> similar > > > > > > > >> >> events, and that “we’re impatient” isn’t going to cut it > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > >> board. > > > > > > > >> >> It certainly wouldn’t with me. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> How many of these annoyances would be eliminated by an easy > > > way > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> release > > > > > > > >> >> and vote on a set of changed artifacts + the cascading > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > >> all at > > > > > > > >> >> once? > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> thanks > > > > > > > >> >> David Jencks > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >>> On Nov 18, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Tamás Cservenák < > > > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> David, > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> I just meant that there is a "forced pause" of 72h. > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> T > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:50 PM David Jencks < > > > > > > > >> david.a.jen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>>> +1 from the sidelines. > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>> I don’t understand > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> * current process causes (forced) context switching, > > and > > > > can > > > > > > > >> likely > > > > > > > >> >>>> lead to > > > > > > > >> >>>> human mistakes: when the release vote is announced, > > > developer > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> FORCED > > > > > > > >> >> to > > > > > > > >> >>>> stop for 72h and possibly switch. This is just a > > > productivity > > > > > > > killer. > > > > > > > >> >>>> <<< > > > > > > > >> >>>> Who is forced to do anything and for what reason? > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
