You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com> on 2020/04/16 08:35:03 UTC
Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Hi,
In Apache Cassandra, we have a test-only dependency[1] (in other words, we
use it to test Cassanra itself), which contains API used for a purpose of
automated testing of multiple versions of Apache Cassandra. This dependency
was extracted from Cassandra tests, and its main purpose is to have a
single code reference rather than copy it across several branches, which
simplifies development process. This dependency is published on Apache
Maven [2].
Apache rules require us to wait for 72 hours when voting for a release,
which means that something that could've been committed and released for
testing with a +1 from a contributor, now needs both more time, and
attention from the community. Since these releases are rather frequent
(think: release per commit), we'd like to simplify release rules for this
test-only dependency.
What we're likely to achieve with frequent votes is that by the version
0.0.25 that is released roughly a couple of months after the project came
to be, people may just lose motivation to both vote, and start new votes,
which may have couter-productive effect on the project itself. Since
Cassandra is now close to 4.0 release, testing things quickly and making
new test builds available is crucial for us.
My questions are:
1. Can we avoid voting for this test-only dependency, and release it with
a +1 from contributor, reinforced by +1 from a committer for oversight?
2. If (1) is not possible, can we simplify voting rules and make a vote for
this test-only dependency that is shorter than 72 hours?
Please note that _if_ this dependency is ever packaged with Apache
Cassandra, it there will _still_ be a "usual" vote on Cassandra release,
where anyone can still voice their concerns about global availability of
this test-only dependency. But since this test-only dependency is sort of
useless outside Cassandra, and especially without an official Cassandra
release, it feels like simplified rules make sense.
Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
Thank you,
-- Alex
[1] https://github.com/apache/cassandra-in-jvm-dtest-api
[2] https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:34 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Constructive feedback about incorrect use of language is rarely best done
> on a public forum; this is commonly interpreted as rude, and a form of
> public shaming. A mild one, admittedly, but one nonetheless. Since Greg
> has not contributed meaningfully to any discussions that I recall,
I've meaningfully contributed to a few discussions, in my time ...
I chose the public forum dev@cassandra rather than a more narrowly-tailored
recipient list because I have seen the misuse of "PMC" in several
communities. My hope was to share the feedback with the entire Cassandra
community, and hopefully feed that to other communities through overlaps
with Cassandra. It was not intended as "shaming" at all, precisely because
I addressed the community's use of the term, rather than individuals.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Constructive feedback about incorrect use of language is rarely best done on a public forum; this is commonly interpreted as rude, and a form of public shaming. A mild one, admittedly, but one nonetheless. Since Greg has not contributed meaningfully to any discussions that I recall, his personal interpretation of the sentence is fairly irrelevant, and he furthermore mentions it's an intervention based on his own internal pet peeve. So the justification for any perceived rudeness is weak. I think it is no less justified to suggest that such an intervention - even if well intentioned - still appears rude and unjustified, and should be reconsidered in future, just as Greg suggested the community reconsider its use of language.
To your point about ambiguity: reading a sentence twice to understand its meaning is not the end of the world, and does not imply it is ambiguous, only that it was not perfectly crafted.
On 16/04/2020, 14:24, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
Benedict,
Please consider the possibility that Greg was offering constructive
criticism. He used polite wording, such as "Please", and clearly
explained why the misuse of the term could be confusing (specifically,
he explained that it could lead one to misunderstand how many
different PMCs were consulted).
I did not read his post to be a "snipe" against non-native English
speakers, and in fact, disagree with you that the usage was
unambiguous. On initial reading, I was thrown off by the incorrect
usage and had to read a second time to understand. I am a native
English speaker.
From my perspective, Greg offered constructive feedback on the correct
usage, and why it mattered. Please accept it as such and do not assume
negative intent.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:18 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
>
> Please update your approach to the community.
>
>
> On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
> below:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> > mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> > simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
> >
>
> "PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
> before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
> incorrect.
>
> You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
> *Members*.
>
> Please update the terminology used by the community.
> -g
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Constructive feedback about incorrect use of language is rarely best done on a public forum; this is commonly interpreted as rude, and a form of public shaming. A mild one, admittedly, but one nonetheless. Since Greg has not contributed meaningfully to any discussions that I recall, his personal interpretation of the sentence is fairly irrelevant, and he furthermore mentions it's an intervention based on his own internal pet peeve. So the justification for any perceived rudeness is weak. I think it is no less justified to suggest that such an intervention - even if well intentioned - still appears rude and unjustified, and should be reconsidered in future, just as Greg suggested the community reconsider its use of language.
To your point about ambiguity: reading a sentence twice to understand its meaning is not the end of the world, and does not imply it is ambiguous, only that it was not perfectly crafted.
On 16/04/2020, 14:24, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
Benedict,
Please consider the possibility that Greg was offering constructive
criticism. He used polite wording, such as "Please", and clearly
explained why the misuse of the term could be confusing (specifically,
he explained that it could lead one to misunderstand how many
different PMCs were consulted).
I did not read his post to be a "snipe" against non-native English
speakers, and in fact, disagree with you that the usage was
unambiguous. On initial reading, I was thrown off by the incorrect
usage and had to read a second time to understand. I am a native
English speaker.
From my perspective, Greg offered constructive feedback on the correct
usage, and why it mattered. Please accept it as such and do not assume
negative intent.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:18 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
>
> Please update your approach to the community.
>
>
> On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
> below:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> > mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> > simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
> >
>
> "PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
> before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
> incorrect.
>
> You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
> *Members*.
>
> Please update the terminology used by the community.
> -g
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Benedict,
Please consider the possibility that Greg was offering constructive
criticism. He used polite wording, such as "Please", and clearly
explained why the misuse of the term could be confusing (specifically,
he explained that it could lead one to misunderstand how many
different PMCs were consulted).
I did not read his post to be a "snipe" against non-native English
speakers, and in fact, disagree with you that the usage was
unambiguous. On initial reading, I was thrown off by the incorrect
usage and had to read a second time to understand. I am a native
English speaker.
From my perspective, Greg offered constructive feedback on the correct
usage, and why it mattered. Please accept it as such and do not assume
negative intent.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:18 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
>
> Please update your approach to the community.
>
>
> On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
> below:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> > mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> > simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
> >
>
> "PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
> before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
> incorrect.
>
> You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
> *Members*.
>
> Please update the terminology used by the community.
> -g
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Benedict,
Please consider the possibility that Greg was offering constructive
criticism. He used polite wording, such as "Please", and clearly
explained why the misuse of the term could be confusing (specifically,
he explained that it could lead one to misunderstand how many
different PMCs were consulted).
I did not read his post to be a "snipe" against non-native English
speakers, and in fact, disagree with you that the usage was
unambiguous. On initial reading, I was thrown off by the incorrect
usage and had to read a second time to understand. I am a native
English speaker.
From my perspective, Greg offered constructive feedback on the correct
usage, and why it mattered. Please accept it as such and do not assume
negative intent.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:18 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
>
> Please update your approach to the community.
>
>
> On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
> below:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> > mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> > simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
> >
>
> "PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
> before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
> incorrect.
>
> You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
> *Members*.
>
> Please update the terminology used by the community.
> -g
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
Please update your approach to the community.
On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
below:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...
> Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
>
"PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
incorrect.
You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
*Members*.
Please update the terminology used by the community.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
Please update your approach to the community.
On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
below:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...
> Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
>
"PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
incorrect.
You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
*Members*.
Please update the terminology used by the community.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
below:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...
> Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
>
"PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
incorrect.
You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
*Members*.
Please update the terminology used by the community.
-g
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 16/04/2020 09:35, Oleksandr Petrov wrote:
More an opinion than an official answer.
> My questions are:
> 1. Can we avoid voting for this test-only dependency, and release it
> with a +1 from contributor, reinforced by +1 from a committer for oversight?
No.
> 2. If (1) is not possible, can we simplify voting rules and make a vote
> for this test-only dependency that is shorter than 72 hours?
Yes.
The 72 hour period is only (strongly) advised. It can be shorter with
good reason. For example, I've seen votes for security releases pass in
less than an hour.
The test only nature of this dependency seems (to me) to be a reasonable
justification for a shorter voting period.
As an aside, I assume the project explored other ways of sharing the
code between branches that avoid the "release" issue all together.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
72 hours is just a recommended minimum [1][2], if you have good reason to change it and understand the consequences of that you can change it and in this case I think you have a good reason. You would however need 3 +1 votes.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>
2. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
below:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...
> Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache Cassandra
> mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in favour of
> simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
>
"PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
incorrect.
You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and its
*Members*.
Please update the terminology used by the community.
-g
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Apologies: I made a typo in Justin's name. Sorry about that & thanks again.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:45 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Justing, Bertrand, and Mark,
>
> This was also how we have understood it initially as well, but I was asked
> by other members of community to check here to make sure we're not missing
> anything. I appreciate your input and time.
>
> We have already explored several alternatives to the "release" issue as
> Mark as mentioned, and wanted to make sure we understand our options before
> we make a final decision.
>
> -- Alex
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:11 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov
>> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...Apache rules require us to wait for 72 hours when voting for a
>> release...
>>
>> I agree with what others have said here and I checked that our release
>> policy is clear on this - and it is.
>>
>> https://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval says
>> "Release votes SHOULD remain open for at least 72 hours." so that
>> delay can be adjusted as mentioned in this thread given good reasons
>> and based on a documented decision of your PMC.
>>
>> The other elements of that approval process are specified with MUST
>> and REQUIRED, so not negotiable.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> alex p
>
--
alex p
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Justing, Bertrand, and Mark,
This was also how we have understood it initially as well, but I was asked
by other members of community to check here to make sure we're not missing
anything. I appreciate your input and time.
We have already explored several alternatives to the "release" issue as
Mark as mentioned, and wanted to make sure we understand our options before
we make a final decision.
-- Alex
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:11 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov
> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...Apache rules require us to wait for 72 hours when voting for a
> release...
>
> I agree with what others have said here and I checked that our release
> policy is clear on this - and it is.
>
> https://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval says
> "Release votes SHOULD remain open for at least 72 hours." so that
> delay can be adjusted as mentioned in this thread given good reasons
> and based on a documented decision of your PMC.
>
> The other elements of that approval process are specified with MUST
> and REQUIRED, so not negotiable.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
alex p
Re: Shorter vote for a test side-project of Apache Cassandra
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov
<ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Apache rules require us to wait for 72 hours when voting for a release...
I agree with what others have said here and I checked that our release
policy is clear on this - and it is.
https://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval says
"Release votes SHOULD remain open for at least 72 hours." so that
delay can be adjusted as mentioned in this thread given good reasons
and based on a documented decision of your PMC.
The other elements of that approval process are specified with MUST
and REQUIRED, so not negotiable.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org