[DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Benjamin Lerer <bl...@apache.org>]

Hi everybody,

CEPs are now a required step for important changes to the Cassandra code
base. Nevertheless, this process is new for all of us and beyond creating a
CEP it seems a bit unclear what needs to be done to get the CEP approved.

I will take as an example the CEP-9: Make SSLContext creation pluggable
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-9%3A+Make+SSLContext+creation+pluggable>
that has been provided with a JIRA ticket ( CASSANDRA-16666
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16666> ) and a PR.

Sumanth and Stefan both raised some high level concerns on the JIRA ticket.
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.

Is my understanding correct? What criteria should be met before we trigger
VOTE?

One other point of confusion is the agreement on the CEPs versus the
agreement on the patch. Agreeing on the CEP in my opinion does not mean
that we agree on the patch. As patch is not required before we agree on the
CEP. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

["benedict@apache.org" <be...@apache.org>]

That’s how I understand the process, yes. Voting to accept the CEP just indicates that the broad strokes painted by the CEP are acceptable to the community, and a patch can be brought forward with the expectation that it will be accepted once it meets the other criteria for acceptance.

From: Benjamin Lerer <bl...@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 10:59
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <de...@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process
Hi everybody,

CEPs are now a required step for important changes to the Cassandra code
base. Nevertheless, this process is new for all of us and beyond creating a
CEP it seems a bit unclear what needs to be done to get the CEP approved.

I will take as an example the CEP-9: Make SSLContext creation pluggable
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-9%3A+Make+SSLContext+creation+pluggable>
that has been provided with a JIRA ticket ( CASSANDRA-16666
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16666> ) and a PR.

Sumanth and Stefan both raised some high level concerns on the JIRA ticket.
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.

Is my understanding correct? What criteria should be met before we trigger
VOTE?

One other point of confusion is the agreement on the CEPs versus the
agreement on the patch. Agreeing on the CEP in my opinion does not mean
that we agree on the patch. As patch is not required before we agree on the
CEP. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>]

Resending to the right thread:

Hi everyone,

Reading the thread I feel we are all more or less on the same page.

My personal line of thinking:
1) I really like Benedict’s idea of some kind of cheat sheet
2) I think some kind of PoC PR/high-level prototype when/if needed, sounds
reasonable. Probably It can help in some cases the author to reconsider  or
even explain better some suggestions/decisions. In that sense, I think I
agree with Maulin that probably Jira ticket after voted CEP is a good idea.
I think that when we put PR in a Jira ticket (at least I as a creature of
habit) we start thinking of more diligent reviews and might forget it is
still unapproved CEP and get into details that doesn’t really matter at
this point in time. But that might be only me. :-)

Best regards,
Ekaterina

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 13:32, Maulin Vasavada <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Based on my experience I definitely like the process where everything that
> needs to be discussed about CEP remains in DISCUSS thread.
>
> Also I like the comment made above " The jira ticket and PR can be created
> as a PoC to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than
> that.". Sometimes it is necessary to really try making code changes and
> realize the potential design challenge OR pitfalls and PoC PRs really help
> in getting better CEP outcomes.
>
> I am not sure about JIRA ticket creation while CEP is in DISCUSS. In my
> particular example of CEP-9 I just carried over a process from another
> Apache project. I think JIRA can be raised once CEP gets Approved and
> changes can be officially tracked as JIRA ticket.
>
> Thanks
> Maulin
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Scott Hirleman <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put
> > that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst
> > redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see?
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > I think that’s a bit extreme – …
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about
> getting
> > > us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any
> censure.
> > > Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion
> and
> > > > what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Hirleman
> > scott.hirleman@gmail.com
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Maulin Vasavada <ma...@gmail.com>]

Based on my experience I definitely like the process where everything that
needs to be discussed about CEP remains in DISCUSS thread.

Also I like the comment made above " The jira ticket and PR can be created
as a PoC to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than
that.". Sometimes it is necessary to really try making code changes and
realize the potential design challenge OR pitfalls and PoC PRs really help
in getting better CEP outcomes.

I am not sure about JIRA ticket creation while CEP is in DISCUSS. In my
particular example of CEP-9 I just carried over a process from another
Apache project. I think JIRA can be raised once CEP gets Approved and
changes can be officially tracked as JIRA ticket.

Thanks
Maulin

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Scott Hirleman <sc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put
> that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst
> redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see?
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > I think that’s a bit extreme – …
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
> > us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
> > Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> > > what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree.
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Hirleman
> scott.hirleman@gmail.com
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Scott Hirleman <sc...@gmail.com>]

Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put
that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst
redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see?

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:

> > I think that’s a bit extreme – …
>
>
>
> Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
> us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
> Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.
>
>
> Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> > what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.
>
>
>
> Agree.
>


-- 
Scott Hirleman
scott.hirleman@gmail.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>]

> I think that’s a bit extreme – …



Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.


Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.



Agree.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

["benedict@apache.org" <be...@apache.org>]

I think that’s a bit extreme – it seems perfectly fine to comment on Jira, but high level discussions around scope, goals and potential confounders should ideally happen on the DISCUSS thread. It’s a difficult balancing act, choosing the venue for a discussion, so let’s not censure people unnecessarily.

Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle. As this process is likely to be quite dynamic over a CEP’s lifetime - once a vote passes, it’s likely that aspects of a CEP will be revisited as a result of discussions (including high level ones) on Jira and other venues, but we won’t want to bring those discussions immediately back to another DISCUSS thread – it’s likely that would wait until some consensus emerges amongst those involved in the work, to present to the dev list for further discussion.


From: Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 11:14
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <de...@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
> thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
> nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>



Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on PRs until the CEP
process has passed a vote. The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC
to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that.

Thanks for raising this Benjamin. It's important we make the new process of
CEPs easy for adoption.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>]

My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
> thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
> nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>



Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on PRs until the CEP
process has passed a vote. The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC
to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that.

Thanks for raising this Benjamin. It's important we make the new process of
CEPs easy for adoption.