[Pulp-dev] RFC process

Tue Mar 21 15:03:19 UTC 2017

I found some small style problems that were left over from when the
proposal was rst. After those are fixed, +1 to merging from me.

David

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> After more discussion on the PR, I've pushed what I think are the final
> revisions. These include moving it to a dedicated repo in the Pulp
> organization. As such the PR is now here:  https://github.com/pulp/pups/
> pull/1
>
> If there are any last comments please let me know, otherwise I plan to
> merge this tomorrow. It would be nice if someone approved this PR. Even
> after being merged, this is still a starting point which we can use to
> refine the process itself over time.
>
> Thanks to everyone who read or gave input.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I pushed another version based on feedback. The changes came as a new
>> commit so you can see them there. I have 2 areas that I want to discuss
>> before merging.
>>
>> == proposed change 1 ==
>> I want really want beautifully readable proposals on pulpproject.org.
>> That being said, I think we should pull that out of this proposal and
>> instead go with:
>> * A dedicated repo with this proposal's text as a README at the root.
>> This would effectively adopt @mhrivnak's comment here[0].
>> * We can figure out how to get those onto pulpproject.org as a separate
>> effort
>>
>> == proposed change 2==
>> Also I want to have the proposals live as a pull request until they are
>> decided on. The current proposal has them being merged regularly. This
>> would reduce friction by having proposals be created/revised without a
>> single core dev needing to be involved. Also collaborators can push to each
>> other's branches with github permissions so collaboration is still very
>> possible. In fact @daviddavis did that with this meta PR. This part is
>> basically written here [1] as a change.
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/#discussion_
>> r103085714
>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-6
>> 5d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R284
>>
>> Comments and ideas are welcome either via e-mail or on the PR.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The things that I like about this proposal:
>>>
>>> - The proposals are always merged so the community can reference them in
>>> the future even if the proposal is not adopted. I like learning from
>>> history.
>>> - Revisions to the proposal are additional commits stored in git. Having
>>> a record of changes can be valuable as the proposal lives on and evolves.
>>> - All the proposals are available on pulpproject.org or some other
>>> wesbsite for anyone to see - including search engines.
>>>
>>> I am not too thrilled about the discussion living separate from the
>>> proposal, but I am a fan of our mailing lists. I would be happy with this
>>> proposal being merged as is so we can announce it for voting and/or further
>>> discussion on pulp-dev list.
>>>
>>> -Dennis
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I pushed a new version based on feedback on the PR. It outlines several
>>>> alternatives that we should consider along with downsides.
>>>>
>>>> What about leaving it as a pull request for longer?
>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R277>
>>>> What about using Github for discussion?
>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R292>
>>>> We could store the PEPs in Redmine. Why aren't we using Redmine?
>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R262>
>>>>
>>>> There are also Downsides
>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R250>
>>>> of this proposal.
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is a +1 to leaving it as a pull request for longer to allow
>>>> more autonomy for creation and revision of proposals. Also, we can
>>>> additionally use Github for feedback, but that email threaded discussion
>>>> should also be allowed to include a broader input from users who don't live
>>>> in Github like most of us do. Both of these not-yet-done simple rewrites
>>>> would remove these from the list of alternatives and incorporate them into
>>>> the proposal itself. I'm happy to make such changes with input from others.
>>>>
>>>> Also in the Unresolved Questions
>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R309>
>>>> section having an acronym or initialization of a name for these would be
>>>> nice.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to get feedback by 00:00 UTC on Tuesday the 28th
>>>> (that's 7pm on Feb 28th). I'll try to be more responsive with the edits
>>>> also.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the input so far.
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Elyezer Rezende <erezende at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to comment about the C4 [1] which is "the Collective Code
>>>>> Construction Contract (C4), [...], aimed at providing an optimal
>>>>> collaboration model for free software projects".
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not mention about creating RFCs specifically but provides some
>>>>> guidelines that may help when implementing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to share some ideas on a possible proposal process. It's
>>>>>> inspired by processes in the Foreman, Python, and Django communities along
>>>>>> with several discussions I've had with core and community users. This is
>>>>>> written as a concrete proposal, but it is 100% changeable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing the meta thing and using the process I'm proposing to
>>>>>> propose the process. The proposal is here [0]. It's unmerged (not the
>>>>>> process) because I suspect we'll want a dedicated repo. This proposal, if
>>>>>> adopted, is still a living document (like Python PEP 0001) so even if its
>>>>>> approved it would still be an evolving document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feedback and collaboration is welcome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also like the idea of using plan.io for our RFCs. The only thing
>>>>>>> that github or etherpad offers over plan.io is the ability to
>>>>>>> edit/update the RFC. If the RFC is in the body of the story/task in
>>>>>>> Redmine, then I think it can only be edited by admins. Maybe we can use the
>>>>>>> comments or not worry about editing the RFC though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were also some other points brought up this past week about
>>>>>>> RFCs—mostly around workflows. One important thing I forgot to consider is
>>>>>>> how to accept RFCs. Should we vote on them? Or perhaps try to arrive at
>>>>>>> some sort of consensus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think all mentioned options could be used, but we need to have a
>>>>>>>> starting point. Something that would track a discussion for a long time.
>>>>>>>> And i lean towards ---> open a story/task (as a starting point).
>>>>>>>> Having a story/task opened we can always reference it in mail
>>>>>>>> discussion or etherpad.
>>>>>>>> Why i prefer to have all/most of the discussion happen on the
>>>>>>>> story/task?
>>>>>>>> Because i cannot guarantee that i will not miss somehow the email
>>>>>>>> or etherpad. I actually often find myself trying to dig through dozens of
>>>>>>>> mails to find the right one. Same with the etherpads :)
>>>>>>>> Because i receive notifications when someone adds a comment on the
>>>>>>>> task/story, even after one month or two. This does not happen with
>>>>>>>> etherpad, and i actually will not see the new comments/ideas until i will
>>>>>>>> check the pad by myself.
>>>>>>>> Periodically. From time to time. Remembering the right pad number,
>>>>>>>> and of course i do not remember it, so i will need to dig into my mails to
>>>>>>>> find it out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>>>>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the things that came up in our retrospective is that we
>>>>>>>>> don’t have a formal way to propose changes to our codebase and processes
>>>>>>>>> (aka RFCs). This was motivated in part by the recent discussion on merging
>>>>>>>>> forward commits on our pulp-dev mailing list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to maybe discuss a way we can propose RFCs and then
>>>>>>>>> document this process in our docs. It sounds like there has already been
>>>>>>>>> some discussion about how to handle RFCs so I apologize coming into this
>>>>>>>>> without having any background.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thinking through RFCs, I see two things to address. First is the
>>>>>>>>> actual format of the RFC. I see some RFCs in plan.io but it
>>>>>>>>> doesn’t seem like there’s a standard way of formatting an RFC. Should there
>>>>>>>>> be? For reference, here's the template for foreman RFCs. I think it might
>>>>>>>>> serve as a good starting point:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secondly, there’s the question of where to discuss and archive
>>>>>>>>> RFCs. Some possible options:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Open a story or task on plan.io
>>>>>>>>> 2. Use a GitHub repo to store and discuss RFCs (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs)
>>>>>>>>> 3. Write the RFC on an Etherpad and once accepted, open a plan.io
>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Just send out RFCs to the mailing list
>>>>>>>>> 5. Something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was thinking we could also use the mailing list in addition to
>>>>>>>>> options 1-3 by sending out an email pointing people to the actual RFC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Elyézer Rezende
>>>>> Senior Quality Engineer
>>>>> irc: elyezer
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170321/7c543512/attachment.htm>