| Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final |
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 4:33 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks that page will be really useful.
I can see people are objecting to planning however it is part of the EDP
I can't answer for everyone, but I think the objection is to the idea of only doing things that are planned. For GlassFish we did submit a very minimal plan: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.glassfish/reviews/7.0.0-release-review
I agree we can and should do a bit better for GlassFish 8 there.
Kind regards,Arjan Tijms
_______________________________________________
“4.10 Project PlansProjects are required to make a Project plan available to their community at the beginning of the development cycle for each major and Minor Release. The plan may be as simple as a short description and a list of issues, or more detailed and complex. Subprojects may opt to include their plans with those of their parent Project.”
Steve Millidge
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: 09 December 2022 14:40
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
Hi,
Thanks for taking the initiative to continue this discussion. Highly appreciated! I've created a wiki page for this, and other roadmap items here: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/glassfish/wiki/Eclipse-GlassFish-8.0-Discussion-(EE-11)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 11:32 AM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My wider point is none of this has been discussed or is on any release plan. It all feels random to me and that is not good for the wider community.
Note that in open source contributions are often random. I understand that for people less involved with open source this may feel different, but it's simply how things happen there. In the case of MP Config in GlassFish we got a surprise contribution from an external community member. Naturally we should not reject such a contribution solely based on it being random and a surprise.
In Open Source, contrary to a more corporate environment, contributions are done by people based on what they see fit and like to work on (scratching their personal itch). If the contribution is not in direct conflict with any of the project plans or goals, we can't (and shouldn't) ask the contributor to go back in time and put it in some plan (ignoring the fact for a moment that time travel is not even possible). Jokes aside, we should be thankful for such contributions, as it shows community interest.
Therefore the roadmap as we put together here is a good direction of what the vendors interested in the project would like to commit to, but if there's some future contribution not on that roadmap we should of course consider it at that moment.
Also note that discussion took place regarding the MicroProfile Config contribution: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/glassfish/pull/23807 Several suggestions were made, the initial PR was updated, and CQs were filed (piggybacked on).
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
Steve Millidge
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: 08 December 2022 22:58
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:38 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMHO reviewing completed PRs for a new feature is not a good process.
There sure have been arguments against and in favour of that approach. As an example though, CDI Lite started in the same way. A PR, based on which discussion started. Of course a PR is never necessarily complete. It's a pull *request* after all, and reviewers can ask for changes (there's an explicit option for that in GitHub reviews).
In the case of the JWT PR, it's in the core a jar being added, and in addition to that a runner for the MP JWT TCK. There would hardly be more to discuss in an issue as what the PR entails:
Add JWT jar
Add a test for this (preferably the TCK)
This is perhaps different from the re-design of a subsystem or development of a complete new feature with lots of code within the GF code base itself. That could have some serious discussion about how to approach it, but adding a jar? What would we really have to discuss upfront there, or what can we even discuss?
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:26:30 PM
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:13 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see you disagree with the proposal?
Not necessarily. The comment above was primarily about whether the MP feature additions had suitable reviews or not.
Regarding the proposal, obviously it's good to discuss things where needed, but keep in mind that a discussion needs at least two parties. Seeing that the response to requests for reviews is lackluster at least, I'm not holding my breath really. That being said, it's probably good to at least start discussions indeed.
I do think we can do this without an overbearing process.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 8:18:42 PM
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:53 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rationale: It has been raised to me as project lead (Note: not by Payara committers) that the incorporation of MicroProfile capabilities without planning, discussion and without suitable review has been problematic for some.
The PR to add MicroProfile config support had been open for 115 days. That should, IMHO, be enough time for anyone who may think it's problematic to say something about it. At least something from Oracle took a look at it, and then of course two people from OmniFish. The contribution was from an external person. In open source we should be happy with contributions, and don't reject them simply because we had not put them on a plan a year ago (open source generally doesn't work like that).
The PR to add MicroProfile jwt support was open for less time, but committers from multiple organizations were requested to review, including Payara. It was their choice however to not respond. Given the nature of open source and version control people can raise concerns and ask for a revert after a PR has been merged, but this too did not happen. Besides OmniFish, an independent GlassFish committer looked at the PR as well.
Altogether it seems to me the reviews have been suitable.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________ glassfish-dev mailing list glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
-- David Matejcek | OmniFish david.matejcek@xxxxxxxxxxx | +420 777 601 682