Following contribution is a recent example, that i think ping committer after push commit will can help.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/389 In this contribution, last comment has been made 2 weeks ago and then code change has pushed a week later (a week ago from now), but committer couldn't be notified about new code change push. and contribution didn't get any chance to have attention from that time. I think just pinging committer after push commit will save a lot of similar cases. Thanks, moon On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:57 PM moon soo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Apologies about being upset in this thread with non-technical issue. > > > How about we start from adding such things like > > - Ping the other committer when no response from committer > - Keep codebase change small if possible (or break contribution into small > peaces when possible) > > in somewhere > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md > > Does it make sense? > > Thanks, > moon > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM Corneau Damien <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As Cos stated before: >> >> I am asking _explicitely_ not to re-start the bickering I have already >>> seen. At this point I am interested in the purely technical side of this. >> >> >> I guess the way to work towards resolving this PR's blocking elements >> have already been listed before, >> and there is another discussion to prepare a topic for legal@ >> >> So there is no reason to continue that thread if it isn't to find a way >> to resolve it. >> >> We already discussed a bit about the PR review process here and in >> another mailing list thread. >> We are also having a PR to document our current review process [1] >> >> We do have a lot of PR on stand by and I feel sorry for that (currently >> 85), we usually tend to be more on alert on those that have some activity >> (notifications). >> We always try to keep track on old PR that needs review or help, but we >> also have new PR and issues coming everyday. >> We try to satisfy everybody but are also keen on maintaining code quality. >> Reviewing PR is not an easy job, it's time consuming, time committers >> would probably prefer spending coding. >> We do it mainly on our spare time, and it's easy to fall into >> productivity issues when it comes to prioritizing. >> >> So I hope you understand better how this works, and that your PR will be >> good to go soon. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/502 >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Is there any reason that you can't tell here? >>> Please re-read the e-mail from Konstantine that started the thread. >>> >>> If you can't tell anything, Is it okay to me assume that you just wanted >>> make negative noise in the community with unidentified words? >>> Please just share your thinking and let me hear and improve from it. >>> >>> I don’t see how having that discussion in public would serve any >>> purpose. >>> >>> If you genuinely don’t understand — the end of our e-mail exchange was >>> an invitation for you to call me on the phone and attempt to resolve those >>> issues without the misunderstandings of tone that can happen in our e-mail >>> exchange. >>> >>> The invitation stands. >>> >>> I will continue to look for ways to move forward in the spirit of >>> cooperation and teamwork. >>> >>> >>> From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >>> Reply: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >>> Date: December 2, 2015 at 10:24:52 PM >>> To: Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]>, >>> [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >>> pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Moon, >>> >>> I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file >>> an >>> issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. >>> All of the relevant people are already informed. >>> >>> I continue to be ready to work cooperatively with anyone who would like >>> to help me resolve the issues. >>> >>> I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link >>> and >>> tried the best at explanation. >>> Maybe this is a language issue, but I have no idea what your concern >>> about a license is. >>> >>> You did cite to two web pages. Neither of them said anything that would >>> explain your position. In fact, they confirmed what I had been saying all >>> along. >>> >>> So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the >>> license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. >>> You’re welcome to do that, of course. I don’t know that I will >>> participate. >>> >>> What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern >>> about >>> license. That's sign of unhealthy community. >>> As Konstantine has pointed out: The ASF has existed for 16 years. This >>> cannot be the first time that this issue arose. The ASF has a “legal faq” >>> and other public documents that discuss various licensing issues. >>> >>> In addition, a primary responsibility of the PMCC — perhaps the most >>> important responsibility — is making sure the project conforms to ASF >>> licensing policy. >>> >>> In terms of community health, my concern is that there is a great deal >>> of confusion about these licensing issues, and people are not able to find >>> a definitive answer simply by checking the ASF documents (or even >>> attempting to do so). >>> >>> (Hint: I reviewed the ASF materials in great detail in preparing the >>> PR.) >>> >>> I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. … What are >>> you referring "the history"? >>> >>> You know *exactly* what I’m talking about. >>> >>> >>> Amos, >>> >>> This mailing list is subscribed by hundreds of people. Let's not trying >>> to make meaningless posts. >>> >>> I told you i *exactly* don't know what you're talking about "the >>> history". >>> So why don't you pin point what *exactly* you talking about, in public? >>> >>> Is there any reason that you can't tell here? >>> If you can't tell anything, Is it okay to me assume that you just wanted >>> make negative noise in the community with unidentified words? >>> >>> Please just share your thinking and let me hear and improve from it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> moon >>> >>> >>> From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >>> Reply: [email protected] < >>> [email protected]> >>> Date: December 2, 2015 at 9:19:50 PM >>> >>> To: [email protected] <[email protected] >>> > >>> Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >>> pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Moon, thank you for your reply. >>> > >>> > Of course, I can claim CI, license, etc and any other issue. Especially >>> > when CI is not passing, I can not sure about the license. To me, these >>> > claims are sign of 'healthy community' not sign of 'does not make >>> sense'. >>> > >>> > You're not meaning, your contribution always need to be accepted >>> without >>> > any claim. right? >>> > I believe the constructive way to move forward, would be for someone >>> who >>> > well-understands the CI & build structure, to begin working with me to >>> > resolve the CI/build integration issues. >>> > >>> > I continue to be ready to work with that person. >>> > >>> >>> >>> I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file an >>> issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. >>> That'll reduce the scope of the problem and that'll help people quickly >>> getting into without understanding your contribution entirely. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > Regarding licensing, I took extensive research steps before submitting >>> the >>> > PR to make sure there was not a licensing problem. >>> > >>> > In fact, many things in the structure of the code were chosen >>> specifically >>> > to avoid any licensing problem. I even negotiated with the authors of >>> some >>> > libraries to switch to Apache-compatible licenses, and did some work on >>> > their projects in exchange. >>> > >>> > Considering all of that — If anyone thinks there is a licensing issue, >>> if >>> > they want to be constructive, the *least* they can do is say clearly >>> > exactly what rule is being violated, how it is being violated, and >>> provide >>> > a link or citation or *something* that shows the opinion is more than >>> > hand-waving. >>> > >>> > I am ready to engage with anyone who does that. >>> > >>> >>> There is separate thread for the license. So i'll leave minimal comment >>> here. >>> >>> I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link and >>> tried the best at explanation. You don't agree on my concern does not >>> mean >>> it's okay to pass. Just like i don't agree on your opinion does not mean >>> it's confirmation of license problem. >>> >>> Of course my concern could be wrong, that's totally fine to me. I don't >>> have any problem on that. I'm not a legal expert. >>> >>> What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern >>> about >>> license. That's sign of unhealthy community. >>> >>> So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the >>> license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. >>> > Yeah you do. >>> > >>> > We had an exchange about it a week before this thread began. >>> > >>> > Some of it even spilled-over into the PR comments after I saw the >>> video. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. The >>> suggestion i made about your code? about the review? about the >>> conference? >>> about the meetup? What are you referring "the history"? >>> >>> Please say in public. What is the history and show how they're related to >>> this thread topic. Otherwise I'll assume you just want to make a negative >>> noise in the community. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> moon >>> >>> >>> >>> > So please share them in PUBLIC on this thread NOT off-list, if you >>> think >>> > that's reason you think your contribution is in impasse. >>> > >>> > I am going to follow Konstantin’s lead reading this issue, and try to >>> give >>> > you the benefit of the doubt. >>> > >>> > >>> > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >>> > Reply: [email protected] < >>> > [email protected]> >>> > Date: December 2, 2015 at 5:06:52 PM >>> > To: [email protected] < >>> [email protected]> >>> > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >>> pull >>> > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >>> > >>> > Thanks Amos for replying. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:17 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Moon — I think there is a misunderstanding about the topic of the >>> > > discussion. >>> > > >>> > > The PR has its own userbase. It has been and is being presented at >>> user >>> > > groups. Its been blogged and tweeted about (none of that came from >>> me!) >>> > > The features are the subject of two jiras and on the Zeppelin >>> roadmap. >>> > > So, the discussion isn't about whether the PR is “good." >>> > > >>> > > But no-one responded to the PR until users began to tweet publicly >>> > @nflabs >>> > > asking why the PR had not been adopted, and e-mailing you directly. >>> This >>> > > looks really bad, especially when the project is considering >>> applying to >>> > > leave incubation. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > Thanks for pinging me. Otherwise i couldn't able to know that you're >>> still >>> > working on it and ready to review. I think it's good practice that >>> pinging >>> > committer for review when there is no sign of response. Except for ping >>> > message has been made on twitter and private email instead of public >>> > mailing list / jira / github issue comment. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > The question here is what, if anything, prevents us from letting >>> bygones >>> > > be bygones and moving forward with this now? >>> > > >>> > > Claims about CI issues, or licenses, or the PR shouldn’t have been >>> > rebased >>> > > (!?!) — well, they don’t really make sense. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Although i didn't review your contribution from day 1, >>> > I'm reviewing your contribution, discussing about license, discussing >>> about >>> > improvement of impasse, all they're part of moving forward. I am moving >>> > forward. >>> > >>> > Of course, I can claim CI, license, etc and any other issue. Especially >>> > when CI is not passing, I can not sure about the license. To me, these >>> > claims are sign of 'healthy community' not sign of 'does not make >>> sense'. >>> > >>> > You're not meaning, your contribution always need to be accepted >>> without >>> > any claim. right? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I keep offering to begin coordinating to integrate the PR with >>> Zeppelin’s >>> > > CI and build system. >>> > > >>> > > But the answer (except from Roman) is still “nah, let us know if you >>> > > figure it out.” >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Actually, my answer was, "If you think CI is failing not because of >>> your >>> > change but because of Zeppelin core problem, then file an jira issue >>> about >>> > it. Everyone will look into". >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Regarding the history: >>> > > >>> > > Konstantin wisely started this thread by saying let’s keep the >>> history >>> > out >>> > > of the discussion. I am respecting that. >>> > > >>> > > If the PR becomes part of Zeppelin, its going to need to be >>> maintained, >>> > > which means that we are going to need to be able to work together. >>> > > >>> > > I have been persuaded to give Moon the benefit of the doubt regarding >>> > > certain issues. He certainly knows what my view of the history is. >>> > > >>> > > If anyone else would like to know, I am happy to share it with them >>> > > off-list. >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. So >>> > please share them in PUBLIC on this thread NOT off-list, if you think >>> > that's reason you think your contribution is in impasse. >>> > >>> > Otherwise I'll never know what you're thinking and I'll not improve. >>> More >>> > importantly, it's easy to make people misunderstand you that you're >>> just >>> > trying to make a negative noises. >>> > >>> > So, do you mind share your view of history in this thread? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > moon >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >>> > > Reply: [email protected] < >>> > > [email protected]> >>> > > Date: December 2, 2015 at 7:45:11 AM >>> > > To: [email protected] < >>> [email protected] >>> > > >>> > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >>> pull >>> > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >>> > > >>> > > Thanks Roman and Eran for the feedback. >>> > > >>> > > *A. About contribution impasse in general* >>> > > >>> > > I think i summarized why it happens and how it can be improved. ie. >>> > > >>> > > 1. Large code base change >>> > > 2. Communication lost >>> > > 3. Opinion diverges >>> > > >>> > > And my solution was >>> > > >>> > > Guide to ping other committer when a committer is not responding, >>> divide >>> > > contribution into small peaces if possible. And committer pay more >>> > > attention to the contribution. >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to hear and learn any more idea to improve. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > *B. About contribution impasses in R interpreter for Zeppelin* >>> > > >>> > > Although I'was the first one who reviewed and commented this >>> contribution >>> > > among the committer, I feel contributor (Amos) is unhappy about the >>> > review. >>> > > >>> > > I want to analyze the reasons and improve this, too. >>> > > >>> > > Here's reason i guess >>> > > >>> > > 1. Late responding (first review has been made after 3 months) >>> > > 2. Lack of help on CI fail (Amos keep complained about CI fail) >>> > > >>> > > I think both 1 and 2 can be improved by the solution i suggested in >>> > section >>> > > A. >>> > > >>> > > Amos, if you think there're more reasons, please feel free to say >>> and let >>> > > me improve. What is the history you're mentioning? >>> > > >>> > > Best, >>> > > moon >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:44 PM Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Just pushing discussion back on the list >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015, 01:14 Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > Alex — if you genuinely do not know the history of this, then I >>> will >>> > > fill >>> > > > > you in. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > lmk… >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > Amos Elberg >>> > > > > Sent with Airmail >>> > > > > >>> > > > > From: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> > > > > Reply: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 6:14:20 AM >>> > > > > To: [email protected] < >>> > > [email protected] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > <[email protected]>, Amos B. Elberg >>> > > > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] >>> incubator-zeppelin >>> > > > > pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >>> > > > > >>> > > > > @Amos, we had plenty of cases of CI failing and always the >>> > > pre-condition >>> > > > > for a merge was a green CI. Sometimes that requires time, polite >>> > > > > collaboration, extra mile in direct asking for help from more >>> > > experienced >>> > > > > members and fixes in different places, which indeed might take >>> time, >>> > as >>> > > > > everyone is busy. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >>
