So, having got back from my lovely holiday (:P) I'm going to try and sum up
the thread so far. Apologies in advance if I misrepresent anything - do
correct me.
To the question of "Should we have a defined RFC procedure?" we seem to
have:
In favour: 9 (not counting myself as the proposer)
Ohad
Lukas
Tomas
Eric
Justin
Shim
Adam
Tom McKay
and a nod from Michael
Against: 1
Dominic
Other key people we've not heard from:
Ewoud
Michael Moll
Marek
Daniel
Dmitri
Ori
Tomer
(not wishing to discount anyone else who may wish to comment, of course)
Taken together, that's 9 for : 1 against : 7 abstain, which I feel is
enough to confirm the proposal, however I'll be happy to leave this open
for a while longer if any undecided people wish to cast a vote.
To the question of how to implement an RFC system, opinion is more
divided, but from the 9 in-favour votes I see 5 (6 if Justin counts) in
favour of GitHub. Thus I suggest that we try out the RFC repo initially,
and change the process if we're unhappy a month or two after we start using
it.
Astute readers will note I listed 9 for-votes with only 8 names, having
counted but not written Ivan. Sorry Ivan!
···
On 27 Apr 2016 4:08 pm, "Greg Sutcliffe" wrote:
So, having got back from my lovely holiday (:P) I’m going to try and sum
up the thread so far. Apologies in advance if I misrepresent anything - do
correct me.
To the question of “Should we have a defined RFC procedure?” we seem to
have:
In favour: 9 (not counting myself as the proposer)
Ohad
Lukas
Tomas
Eric
Justin
Shim
Adam
Tom McKay
and a nod from Michael
Against: 1
Dominic
Other key people we’ve not heard from:
Ewoud
Michael Moll
Marek
Daniel
Dmitri
Ori
Tomer
(not wishing to discount anyone else who may wish to comment, of course)
Taken together, that’s 9 for : 1 against : 7 abstain, which I feel is
enough to confirm the proposal, however I’ll be happy to leave this open
for a while longer if any undecided people wish to cast a vote.
To the question of how to implement an RFC system, opinion is more
divided, but from the 9 in-favour votes I see 5 (6 if Justin counts) in
favour of GitHub. Thus I suggest that we try out the RFC repo initially,
and change the process if we’re unhappy a month or two after we start using
it.
> So, having got back from my lovely holiday (:P) I'm going to try and sum up
> the thread so far. Apologies in advance if I misrepresent anything - do
> correct me.
>
> To the question of "Should we have a defined RFC procedure?" we seem to
> have:
>
> In favour: 9 (not counting myself as the proposer)
> Ohad
> Lukas
> Tomas
> Eric
> Justin
> Shim
> Adam
> Tom McKay
>
> and a nod from Michael
>
> Against: 1
> Dominic
>
> Other key people we've not heard from:
> Ewoud
> Michael Moll
> Marek
> Daniel
I'm just not sure if it's a good or a bad idea, as I thing it's hard
already to keep up with mailing list discussions, redmine, and PRs and
this adds another thing. I lean towards no, but I guess it's best to try
it and if it's really not useful it'll fall out of favor with the group
after some time.
···
On 04/27, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
Dmitri
Ori
Tomer
(not wishing to discount anyone else who may wish to comment, of course)
Taken together, that’s 9 for : 1 against : 7 abstain, which I feel is
enough to confirm the proposal, however I’ll be happy to leave this open
for a while longer if any undecided people wish to cast a vote.
To the question of how to implement an RFC system, opinion is more
divided, but from the 9 in-favour votes I see 5 (6 if Justin counts) in
favour of GitHub. Thus I suggest that we try out the RFC repo initially,
and change the process if we’re unhappy a month or two after we start using
it.
> So, having got back from my lovely holiday (:P) I'm going to try and sum up
> the thread so far. Apologies in advance if I misrepresent anything - do
> correct me.
>
> To the question of "Should we have a defined RFC procedure?" we seem to
> have:
>
> In favour: 9 (not counting myself as the proposer)
> Ohad
> Lukas
> Tomas
> Eric
> Justin
> Shim
> Adam
> Tom McKay
>
> and a nod from Michael
>
> Against: 1
> Dominic
>
> Other key people we've not heard from:
> Ewoud
> Michael Moll
> Marek
I don't have a feeling we strongly need this. I'm fine with trying it. You
named three points as a motivation for doing so:
Closed discussion
Fragmented discussion
Lack of review of design
But at the same time I think it's not complete solution. Sometimes it's better
to write a PR, sometimes it's better to write a document and yes github is
good tool for both. But at the same time we need to keep track of release
alignments, bugs related to the feature etc. Keeping only one central place
for tracking all such PRs and documents is the key and I think redmine should
be this place. I'd rather see all core devs watching new redmine issues and
insisting on more descriptive descriptions with links to external sources if
necessary. This github RFC system is just part of it.
Feel free to count me in +1 if it helps anything.
···
On Wednesday 27 of April 2016 16:08:31 Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
–
Marek
Daniel
Dmitri
Ori
Tomer
(not wishing to discount anyone else who may wish to comment, of course)
Taken together, that’s 9 for : 1 against : 7 abstain, which I feel is
enough to confirm the proposal, however I’ll be happy to leave this open
for a while longer if any undecided people wish to cast a vote.
To the question of how to implement an RFC system, opinion is more
divided, but from the 9 in-favour votes I see 5 (6 if Justin counts) in
favour of GitHub. Thus I suggest that we try out the RFC repo initially,
and change the process if we’re unhappy a month or two after we start using
it.
Can't argue with Redmine from a bug tracking/linking perspective, but I
would counter by saying that the downside to Redmine is it's not so good at
tracking history in a easy to use way. Yes, you can view wiki page changes;
yes, you can look at bug diffs; but it's not as clear. It's also more
difficult to distinguish what's proposed vs what's accepted.
It seems we have a sufficient number of +1s for giving this a go, and have
given the discussion a reasonable amount of time. I'm also assuming we are
generally happy with the text I've written in the example RFC repo, at
least as a first trial. Therefore, the next steps (as I see it) are:
Transferring/copying the RFC repo to theforeman namespace
Updating the Developer Handbook on the website to reference the README
Transferring any existing / in-progress RFCs into the repo
The repo should probably be in the core team so the same people with commit
rights to core have commit rights to the RFCs. I can get on with these
actions later today (or possibly Monday).
Cheers,
Greg
···
On 2 May 2016 at 13:39, Marek Hulán wrote:
But at the same time I think it’s not complete solution. Sometimes it’s
better
to write a PR, sometimes it’s better to write a document and yes github is
good tool for both. But at the same time we need to keep track of release
alignments, bugs related to the feature etc. Keeping only one central place
for tracking all such PRs and documents is the key and I think redmine
should
be this place. I’d rather see all core devs watching new redmine issues and
insisting on more descriptive descriptions with links to external sources
if
necessary. This github RFC system is just part of it.
