Summarizing so far: Non-binding: Girish Sharma, Nitin Goyal Binding: Christophe Bornet, Penghui Li, Jun Ma, Yu Liu, Lari
Questions: 1. Girish - Why do we need to keep the voting in the mailng list? Since it’s mandatory by ASF. Also, I prefer to change the process step by step. This is a big change as it is. 2. Tison - Do we keep the voting in the mailing list? Yes 3. Enrico: Discussion on high level details should remain in the mailing list. Judging from PIPs I read, I would say the majority of the feedback is not in the scope of the PIP, but in the scope certain section / part of the PIP. if 90% of the comments already transpire in the PR, I don’t think it will benefit for the mere 10%. Also, human beings are hard at using two systems at the same time :) A big plus for discussions on PR is that it’s public and everybody can pitch in (For example, Eron Wright was invited to help on a PIP for Open ID Connect (Michael) by team members. If the barrier was: joing the mailing list, we wouldn’t get it. If it’s very critical for you, we can just leave it open, and let people decide where to comment. WDYT? 4. Lari - can we consider separate repo. It’s possible of course, but I fear the following: - It’s yet another repo to clone and search. Majority of PIPs are Pulsar related and majority of Pulsar contributors have that cloned, used and up to date weekly / daily. It’s would create less friction if it is on main repo. You need to search? Pulsar is already there, ready. - Previous discussion long time ago had many decision points which eventually “klled” the initiative. We can always move it if it really causes a pain point to many people. WDYT? > On 31 Mar 2023, at 23:05, Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > > Could we consider a separate repository for the PIP files? > > -Lari > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023, 23.27 Asaf Mesika, <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> In the last 2 months, I've increased my PIP review time (I do it in >> cycles), and reviewed quite a few PIPs. >> >> My conclusion as a result of that: >> >> It's nearly impossible to review PIPs using a mailing list. >> We must fix it soon. >> >> *Why?* >> 1. Let's say you review the PIP and find 10 issues. Once you quote and >> comment on those ten points, you basically started 10 threads of >> conversations. >> After 2-3 ping pongs with quotes of quotes of quotes, it takes you forever >> to read each thread properly. You find your CTRL-F to search to find your >> original quote, and reply. Load it up again in your head, switching to the >> PIP tab to read it again. >> After 10 ping pongs, it becomes almost an impossible mission. >> >> I can say I'm 75% tired just from the process, not from the review itself. >> >> 2. It's non collaborative by design. >> After 10 ping pongs, the ability of someone to come and join the discussion >> is 0. They need to go through so many replies, which are half quotes, find >> the original reply, and browse to the PIP. >> It's no wonder people drop off the PIP review once we cross 5-6 replies. >> It's no wonder, nobody joins after 10 replies. >> >> 3. It's not open to the public. Non collaborative. >> You can't just get a link, and join the review. Not only because of (1) and >> (2). You need to join the mailing list. You don't get the past emails to >> reply. Just joining the list is a high enough bar for many people. >> I personally participated in review of proposals in OpenTelemetry in the >> last 6 months, even though I'm just an occasional user. Why? They were >> conducted on GitHub PR , so it was easy for me - click a link and reply. >> >> 4. All over the place >> Sometimes people comment on the GitHub issue. >> Sometimes on the mailing list. >> Not a single place. >> >> 5. No history. >> Ok, finally the author was convinced. I can't see just the changes. They >> need to explicitly tell me something was changed. >> >> 6. Delete All. >> They can go crazy, after 1 year, edit the GitHub issue , delete all the >> text and write "Kafka is the king". No history, nobody can stop them. It's >> their issue. >> >> 7. Show me all the approved PIPs >> Hard to track it today, hard to maintain it updated. >> >> 8. Resolved comments >> Even though you managed to read all 35 replies so far, in reply 36 you see >> the author agreed to all 8 out of 10 suggestions. You have no idea of >> knowing that in advance. You just wasted 1 hour. >> >> >> *What do I suggest?* >> >> PR is the main tool we have that allows multiple threaded discussion. >> Git provides history. You can't delete it without approval from PMC >> members. >> >> 1. We'll create a folder named "pip" in the pulsar main repo. It will >> contain one markdown file for each PIP. The file will be named >> "pip-xxx.md".I will write below how to obtain XXX before you start. >> 2. To create a PIP, you grab "pip/template.md" and use it to compose your >> file in the pip folder. >> 3. You submit this file as a PR named "PIP-xxx: short description". >> 4. You create "[DISCUSS] PIP-xxx: short description" in the DEV mailing >> list and refer people to your PR, with short text explaining the gist of >> it. >> 5. People discuss using PR comments, each is its own threaded comment. >> 6. Comment was done discussion? They resolve it. This way you see what the >> pending discussions are at a glance. >> 7. Reached consensus? Good. Send "[VOTE] PIP-xxx: short description" on DEV >> mailing list. >> 8. PIP approved? Awesome. Push commit with link to vote. >> A PMC member will merge it. >> Merge == approved. >> PMC members can add a PIP label. >> 9. Rejected? All good. Close the PR. >> Closed == Rejected. >> It can't be deleted. All comments are still here. >> >> Before you start, you search Pull Requests with label PIP in GitHub (`is:pr >> "PIP-" in:title`) >> Take the biggest number and add 1. >> It is super rare to have two people create PR at the same time. >> >> *Show me all approved PIPs:* >> Search merged PRs labeled PIP. >> Look at "pip" folder >> >> *Show me rejected PIPs:* >> Search closed PRs with "PIP-" in title, or labeled PIP. >> >> >> This is very similar to how Apache BK works. >> >> WDYT? >>
