[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [p2-dev] committer votes and fumbled fingers.
- From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:10 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (X11/20090817)
Ultimately it is up to the project to decide by what criteria new
committers are brought on board.
In this case, a major code contribution is being brought into the
project. I assume that the very fact that the code is being accepted by
the project means that the project has some faith that the code is of
good quality and is a valuable addition to the project. By extension,
the project should have some faith that the developers of that code are
themselves of good quality. In this particular case, the developers of
the code are known to be very familiar with the EDP and are known to
have produced high quality assets.
It seems silly (IMHO) to accept a major code contribution and then
require that the very developers who created the code further earn the
right to be committers on that code by making contributions to their own
I don't think that we need any special process for committers that
result from a move review. The justification for the new committer
should read something to the effect of "Joe is a major contributor to a
significant new contribution that the project has accepted. Joe has
agreed to join the project so that he can continue to support and extend
Keep in mind that I'm talking about *significant* contributions. I don't
think I'd feel the same way about somebody who submitted a patch.
Ian Bull wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Mik Kersten <mik@xxxxxxxxxxx
That’s an interesting point Ian. My guess is that the main
safeguard we have right now is the commit rights vote. So,
hypothetically speaking, if someone were suspicious of this or
other cases, they should vote -1 until they were comfortable with
the move. In that sense the current EDP Move Review Process seems
+1, that's a great point about the veto vote.
My previous direct doing a move is when we decided to move Zest
from Mylyn to GEF in 2006 (bug 164387). If I recall, I pushed for
the very talented Zest creator to get commit rights on the new
Zest component of GEF without directly earning them on GEF,
thinking that it would be onerous to end up being moved without
commit rights on the target. It made sense and worked in that
case, which is why I didn’t question the process when Wayne
suggested this process for the P2/Discovery move.
The Zest move was a little different as the commit rights were only for
the code being moved. It was clear that if commit rights were needed for
other parts of GEF that these would have to be earned. This made sense
in the Zest case as the component was completely isolated, but it
doesn't work in all cases.
But I still think that we need to fix something here. I had one
of the Tasktop guys ask me “why am I getting commit rights on P2
when I didn’t earn them?”. He didn’t require more explanation
than a pointer to the Move Review, since the description there is
pretty clear. Wayne, assuming that the process is OK and that the
vote is sufficient to avoid gaming, I wonder if we need a special
procedure and link to EDP, or at least a convention, for committer
votes that result from a move review. Also, somethign I didn’t
see specified is if the commit rights should not be assigned until
after the move review happens, in case anyone from outside the
project’s mailing list wants to object or discuss.
I think the reaction of the "moved" committers is also interesting. I
wonder if a "moved" committer would have any reservation touching code
outside of the moved code.
Dr. Mik Kersten
Tasktop CEO, Mylyn Lead
*From:* Ian Bull [mailto:irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* December-08-09 2:12 PM
*To:* P2 developer discussions
*Cc:* mik.kersten@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mik.kersten@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
*Subject:* Re: [p2-dev] committer votes and fumbled fingers.
Mik, Susan, Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue. I
personally don't feel "dis'd", but I can see how that could happen.
In this case there is absolutely no problem as both Shawn and
Steffen are very strong developers and established members of the
Eclipse community (and we would be lucky to have them help out
with p2). However, I think this particular policy could be gamed.
Do we see fundamental difference between someone committing 6
months worth of patches (both bug fixes and new features) and
someone else creating a new enhancement in a separate project and
"moving" it? It would seem that a project *could* manipulate this
policy to fast track commit status. (Give a developer commit
rights on an incubator, have them fix one bug there, move the code).
It's an interesting discussion, clearly not relevant in this case,
but interesting none-the-less.
I'm looking forward to the code in the p2 repository :-) .
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Susan Franklin McCourt
<susan_franklin@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:susan_franklin@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Even though I was aware of the move and the commit vote (having
participated in calls about it and following the bug report), I
must say I hadn't read the specific move review link before
casting my vote. It does explain quite clearly that the commit
rights are part of the move.
The most important thing to me was that other committers
understand the nature of this nomination so it didn't seem like we
were subjectively "fast tracking" folks.
Inactive hide details for "Mik Kersten" ---12/08/2009 12:24:48
PM---Hi Susan,"Mik Kersten" ---12/08/2009 12:24:48 PM---Hi Susan,
*"Mik Kersten" <mik@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mik@xxxxxxxxxxx>>*
Sent by: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/08/2009 12:24 PM
Please respond to mik.kersten,P2 developer discussions
To: <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [p2-dev] committer votes and fumbled fingers.
I see your concern, and was wondering about this myself when we
the move discussions. The oddity being that individuals get
on a project that they may not have participated in directly to a
degree. My understanding of it from Wayne's post on bug 295273 is
kind of move and commit rights assignment follows the Move Review
ve_Review My reading of that is that the P2 project is deciding
commit rights to those committers, who have commit rights on
project, because it wants the component in P2, not because those
have earned their rights on P2. If that were not the case, I
agree that it
would not do right by the others who have earned their commit
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steffen Pingel [mailto:steffen.pingel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: December-08-09 11:05 AM
> To: Mik Kersten; Shawn Minto
> Subject: Fwd: [p2-dev] committer votes and fumbled fingers.
> I agree with Susan's points and don't think it's right that me and
> Shawn are getting commit rights on a project that we have not
> participated in. I think it's worth considering to withdraw and
> patches instead of committing directly to the P2 repository. The
> we should do is to state that we expect the discovery component to be
> part of the incubator and will limit our activity to that one
> particular component.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Susan Franklin McCourt <susan_franklin@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM
> Subject: [p2-dev] committer votes and fumbled fingers.
> To: P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi, everyone.
> I felt the need to explain a couple of things with respect to my
> committer votes for Steffen and Shawn.
> I thought I was voting +1 for Daniel as an equinox incubator
> (after all, he's already a regular committer), but apparently I
> inadvertently assigned a +1 and "sure" to one of Steffen's
> I was planning a longer explanation for voting +1 for Steffen and
> So my votes look a bit confused, one saying "sure" the other with a
> long explanation, and a bunch of +1's after that (after getting
> frustrated with fumbling the portal interface).
> I thought it was important to say that:
> - I've seen patches and bug reports from both Steffen and Shawn
> course of my platform UI work, or watching SWT bugs, etc.
> - these guys are talented committers
> - I think it's a bit odd to vote in a committer who hasn't yet
> actively participated in the project itself
> - the Mylyn discovery work fills an important gap in our p2 story and
> has proven itself through adoption by other projects
> - it is best for p2 if we can integrate the work and have a cohesive
> story about how these pieces fit together and why
> - we need those guys to support their code in p2-land, hence they
> to be committers
> I'm making this lengthy (public) explanation because I don't want to
> "dis" committers like Ian, Thomas, Henrik, Daniel who attended a
> of calls and submitted loads of patches before we even started a
> p2-dev mailing list
> p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Steffen Pingel
> Committer, http://eclipse.org/mylyn
> Senior Developer, http://tasktop.com
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev mailing list
-- R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource