[Pulp-dev] Plugin teams problem statement

Michael Hrivnak mhrivnak at redhat.com
Fri Oct 27 18:28:03 UTC 2017


Thanks! Another thought after reading with the updates:

It's easy to assume in our discussion that "having the commit bit" ==
"being responsible for maintaining a thing". But the latter is a state a
developer can be in, while the former is one of multiple potential ways to
designate or assign that state. While the former does capture the policy
being proposed, it does not necessarily reflect the current state of
affairs, nor should we assume that someone reading this problem statement
will already have that equivalence in mind. Thus I suggest changing this:

"Currently the contributors do not treat all members of the single
developer team as if they have committer rights to all plugins and core."

to this:

"Currently the contributors do not treat all members of the single
developer team as if they are responsible for maintaining all plugins and
core."

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback. I think I addressed all of it but let me know if
> I missed something.
>
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This looks good. I made a couple of small in-line suggestions by doing
>> strike-through followed by a replacement. Broader suggestions follow:
>>
>> For me, I think the first point could be read as describing a logistical
>> problem of giving someone a commit bit on a single repo. "you have to give
>> that person committer rights to all plugins and Pulp core at once." Once we
>> decide to give someone commit access to a repo (that's the hard part),
>> actually doing it is very easy on github. An example is that we gave
>> @mibanescu commit access only to pulp_deb. I think the intent of the first
>> point is not to make such a logistical argument, but to describe
>> undesirable outcomes of the current policy. It may be more clear to change
>> this:
>>
>> "First, having a single developer team means that in order to give
>> someone committer rights to a plugin you have to give that person committer
>> rights to all plugins and Pulp core at once."
>>
>> to this:
>>
>> "First, when a new developer is added to the single team, they are given
>> committer rights to core and all plugins, regardless of which areas they
>> intend to focus on."
>>
>> The latter describes the undesirable outcome, whereas the former could be
>> read as "The policy is bad because $POLICY."
>>
>> The second point ("Second, there are ...") could be divided into two
>> points. The first half talks about why it's valuable to know who has
>> responsibility for a plugin. (This looks a lot like the third point.) The
>> second half talks about the benefits to an individual of being able to
>> focus on a specific area. I suggest either having 4 total points, or move
>> the first half of point 2 to be part of point 3.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks good. I did add a statement between the "<>" in the next
>>> sentence.  Please feel free to update - just trying to help articulate
>>> the un-stated for clarity and evaluation of the proposed solution.
>>>
>>> Without clear ownership, feature implementation, bugfixes, and code
>>> review all become more difficult because< it is unclear who needs to
>>> be involved in the resolution of concerns and who has the final say in
>>> disputes (?).>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:43 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks Robin. I’ve updated the PUP based on your feedback and with the
>>> help
>>> > of some other folks on IRC. Please feel free to look it over again.
>>> >
>>> > I’ll wait until about Monday October 30th before I proceed with
>>> working on
>>> > the rest of the PUP.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi David,
>>> >> I've added some comments - trying to mostly articulate what I heard
>>> >> you guys saying last week.  I agree this is a good summary, just would
>>> >> like to work on stating the obvious a little more obviously.
>>> >> My comments are in red (or whatever this weird muddy pink color is.
>>> >> Mauve?)
>>> >> Thanks for getting us started on this.
>>> >> Robin
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:54 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Last week we talked about forming teams for each Pulp plugin and I
>>> >> > wanted to
>>> >> > open up a community discussion around that idea. @bmbouter and I
>>> have
>>> >> > come
>>> >> > up with a proposed problem statement [0] to kick off this
>>> discussion.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We’re looking for feedback from everyone so please feel free to
>>> check
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > statement out and make edits. Or respond to this email with any
>>> thoughts
>>> >> > about it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > After about a week or so, I’ll try to create a PUP based on any
>>> feedback
>>> >> > we
>>> >> > get.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [0] http://pad-theforeman.rhcloud.com/p/pulp-plugin-pup
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Hrivnak
>>
>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>
>


-- 

Michael Hrivnak

Principal Software Engineer, RHCE

Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171027/dd1ab005/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list