On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you?
That's how I read Ross's account of the Rave project (mentor pointed to the docs, RM read them, monthly releases bloomed). I don't think that was an ungenerous reading, but characterizing it as RTFM may have misrepresented its tone. > Yes it's long and painful prose written by many different authors, > but simply complaining about it isn't going to get us anywhere. We've > known about the problems for years now; what we need is for people > to step up, in a whine-free way, and collaborate with each other. > > Are you game? Sure, I'll offer to help with drafting. Where is a good place to coordinate that? -C > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:46 PM >> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases >> >> Ross is 100% in identifying mentors as critical to a smooth release. >> More specifically, mentors familiar with what a project is likely to >> face in an Incubator vote. >> >> I'm sorry to say that I was an AWOL mentor for the first 5 RCs. I >> still wouldn't have anticipated the objections from the IPMC that- as >> Jun points out- were true of every release. By way of illustration, >> take the debate on source releases that spread outside of general@ and >> into other foundation lists. It took over three days to get a yes/no >> answer from *anyone*, and while hundreds of words on why the answer >> could be yes were written, the closest we got to a definitive answer >> on foundation policy was a link to something Roy said in 2009 on >> legal-discuss@. And none of that discussion is available to podlings! >> >> Even that didn't speak to our question. RC6 contained all the source >> and unit tests, but it also included artifacts of a successful build. >> The discussion was focused on minimum requirements, while RC6 was >> rejected (in part) for including too much. >> >> The incubator documentation on releases is over 10k words with at >> least 80 TODO items. So while I agree that mentors' familiarity with >> the process is critical to smooth releases, I reject the RTFM >> suggestion as trolling. Further, it's not policy when objections *not* >> in the documentation get added and cited ex post facto. >> >> In some of these threads, the Incubator is confused with an ASF >> project. This is incoherent given its size and composition. The >> Incubator is a curriculum, not a community. And if we're going to >> continue to use metaphors like "graduation" and "mentor", >> then the >> requirements for a release must 1) be stated crisply and succinctly 2) >> be separated from best practices, no matter how widely practiced and >> highly regarded some of those procedures may be. >> >> As examples from recent release votes: a particular sequence of >> transformations in subversion for composing a release is not a >> requirement. Small tarballs are not a requirement. Correctly composing >> the LICENSE, DISCLAIMER, and NOTICE files are requirements. >> >> If I've learned one thing from trying to advise on a release, it's >> that I know a lot less than I thought I did. I might be an acceptable >> teaching assistant, but of the 100+ IPMC members, there are only a >> handful of tenured members who can distinguish lore from canon. I (and >> others, no doubt) would happily furnish pints to IPMC members who can >> distill what already exists into a small set of rules, rather than >> augmenting the existing Leviadocs. -C >> >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Ross Gardler >> <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >>> I sympathize with you're comments, however, I do want to point out that >> the >>> problems are more to do with the Project committers and mentors than the >>> process (although documentation can always be improved). >>> >>> As evidence I submit the Apache Rave poddling. This project made its first >>> release within a couple of months of entering the incubator and has made a >>> release every month since (I've not checked the dates, but I think this >>> statement is accurate). >>> >>> Rave achieved this because Ate Douma (mentor) pointed to the appropriate >>> docs. Matt Franklin read and understood the docs and did a release. Ate >>> watched and advised throughout the process. The first trekker took a couple >>> of cycles to get right. All sidewinder releases have been >> "simple". >>> >>> Please don't think I'm saying there is no value in your mail, there >> is. We >>> can certainly improve in the support we provide. To address your specific >>> points: >>> >>> 1. Your mentors are the example, if they are not guiding you ask if anyone >>> here can help. >>> >>> 2. Different views of different people is difficult to resolve (see Roberts >>> recent mail on the same topic). My advice is to understand the (admittedly >>> confusing) documentation. If that doesn't help ask on the appropriate >> list >>> (here if you don't know which list) >>> >>> 3. Clone or best mentors - sorry nothing better to suggest here >>> >>> 4. Get it right first time (mentors like Ate only let it go to a vote if it >>> is ready, so 72 hours is called once only). Also know the rules with >>> respect to release voting (see Joe's mail). >>> >>> Finally, and most importantly, help us improve the process (as you are >>> doing with this mail). Given my responses above is there anything concrete >>> you suggest we do to improve things (patches to docs seem like an obvious >>> start - most of those docs are written by people who already do Apache >>> releases). >>> >>> Ross >>> >>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >>> On Nov 27, 2011 7:13 PM, "Jun Rao" <jun...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Apache members, >>>> >>>> Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been >> trying >>>> to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still >> not >>>> done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache release >>>> process and are learning things along the way. However, I think Apache >> can >>>> do a better job in the incubating process to make releases much less >>>> painful. In the following, I will summarize some of problems that we >>>> had experienced. This is not an accusation, nor is it personal. I just >> hope >>>> that we can all learn from our experience so that Kafka and other >> incubator >>>> projects can release more smoothly in the future. >>>> >>>> 1. There is no good example to follow. >>>> As a new incubator project, the natural thing for us to do when it >> comes to >>>> releasing our code is to follow what other Apache projects do. However, >>>> more than once, the feedback that we got is that those are not good >>>> examples to follow. It seems that those "bad" examples are >> not isolated >>>> cases. >>>> >>>> 2. Different Apache members have different interpretations of the same >>>> rule. >>>> It seems that there is no consensus on some of the basic rules even >> among >>>> Apache members. For example, what constitutes a source distribution and >>>> what should be put in the NOTICE file? Since all it takes is one >> negative >>>> vote to block a release, this increases the turnover rate of RCs. >>>> >>>> 3. Not enough constructive and comprehensive suggestions. >>>> Some of the issues that are present in Kafka RC7 exist in RC1. Those >> issues >>>> could have been resolved much earlier had there been more constructive >> and >>>> comprehensive feedbacks from early on. Instead, often, the feedback >> just >>>> points out the violation of one or two issues that are enough to block >> a >>>> release. People like Ant Edler have made some constructive suggestions >> and >>>> we really appreciate that. We could use more suggestions like that. >>>> >>>> 4. Not enough flexibility in applying the rules. >>>> Some of the rules don't make common sense. For example, if we >> publish a new >>>> RC that simply fixes a few lines in NOTICE/LICENSE. We are still >> required >>>> to go through a full 3-day vote in Kafka and another full 3-day vote in >>>> Apache general. This, coupled with the high turnover rate of RCs, can >> delay >>>> the release for a significant long time. Both Chris Douglas and Ant >> Edler >>>> wanted to relax the rule slightly to help us speed things up. However, >> not >>>> every Apache member tolerates such flexibility. Again, all it takes is >> just >>>> one vote to kill a release. >>>> >>>> To summarize, our experience of releasing in Apache has not been very >>>> pleasant so far. I am not sure if our experience is the exception or >> the >>>> norm among incubator projects. In any case, I sincerely hope that at >> least >>>> some of those concerns can be addressed in Apache to make the release >>>> process more enjoyable, especially for new comers. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jun >>>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org