You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zipkin.apache.org by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> on 2019/04/30 01:16:45 UTC
on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Hi, team.
I'm concerned about lack of participation on the zipkin-api vote. I'm
concerned it might be because people expect a one-line command to work
flawlessly, and they saw the scary output I pasted, and aren't
interested in trying.
The scary output is about things that are not required for ASF
verification. For example, there is no requirement for congruence
between a repo and a dist, and there's certainly no requirement for
unit tests inside a source dist.
Concretely speaking, I think any "extra steps" we place on ourselves
should be non-blocking and non error causing. If they do accidentally
cause errors, please consider it a glitch and move on to vote. Voting
helps folks out of the task of RM and allows us to proceed.
Most important example is the assumption that compiling IDL stubs must
be done automatically and also by maven. There is no such requirement
in ASF. It just says people can test, aka build the stubs, if they
have the tools, ex protoc or thrift compiler, or swagger codegen. It
is quite a reach to think a multi-language IDL must include automation
that is driven by maven (a java project) for example.
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
We have a lot of votes right now and most are volunteers.. release
management locks someone up until votes not only proceed here, but
also into the IPMC. IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool
polish. Everyone who is on the IPMC can vote, if you have a couple
minutes, please help vote this one.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0d121cede77529c339e181036b79fde8a52e7809eea1322aa6e8f3fb@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Posted by Zoltán Nagy <ab...@apache.org>.
> IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool polish.
I guess that's aimed at me? :D Sorry for missing the new vote thread. I'll
go and do the thing now.
(Sorry if this appears twice, sent once accidentally from my non-@apache
address which may or may not get filtered out)
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:34 AM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, team.
>
> I'm concerned about lack of participation on the zipkin-api vote. I'm
> concerned it might be because people expect a one-line command to work
> flawlessly, and they saw the scary output I pasted, and aren't
> interested in trying.
>
> The scary output is about things that are not required for ASF
> verification. For example, there is no requirement for congruence
> between a repo and a dist, and there's certainly no requirement for
> unit tests inside a source dist.
>
> Concretely speaking, I think any "extra steps" we place on ourselves
> should be non-blocking and non error causing. If they do accidentally
> cause errors, please consider it a glitch and move on to vote. Voting
> helps folks out of the task of RM and allows us to proceed.
>
> Most important example is the assumption that compiling IDL stubs must
> be done automatically and also by maven. There is no such requirement
> in ASF. It just says people can test, aka build the stubs, if they
> have the tools, ex protoc or thrift compiler, or swagger codegen. It
> is quite a reach to think a multi-language IDL must include automation
> that is driven by maven (a java project) for example.
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
>
> We have a lot of votes right now and most are volunteers.. release
> management locks someone up until votes not only proceed here, but
> also into the IPMC. IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool
> polish. Everyone who is on the IPMC can vote, if you have a couple
> minutes, please help vote this one.
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0d121cede77529c339e181036b79fde8a52e7809eea1322aa6e8f3fb@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
>
Re: on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@apache.org>.
> Everyone who is on the IPMC can vote, if you have a couple
> minutes, please help vote this one.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0d121cede77529c339e181036b79fde8a52e7809eea1322aa6e8f3fb@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
Typo, I meant everyone on the PPMC (though also IPMC can vote of course)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Posted by Zoltán Nagy <ab...@apache.org>.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. So many votes now! \o/
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 09:02 Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool polish.
> >
> > I guess that's aimed at me? :D Sorry for missing the new vote thread.
> I'll
> > go and do the thing now.
>
> it was more about my guess that the scary output on zipkin-api (lack
> of polish) was behind why folks voted on layout (no scary output), but
> didn't vote for the api. I can't read minds, so likely wrong.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
>
Re: on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
> > IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool polish.
>
> I guess that's aimed at me? :D Sorry for missing the new vote thread. I'll
> go and do the thing now.
it was more about my guess that the scary output on zipkin-api (lack
of polish) was behind why folks voted on layout (no scary output), but
didn't vote for the api. I can't read minds, so likely wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: on the IDL distribution (zipkin-api) and our source verification tooling
Posted by Zoltán Nagy <ab...@abesto.net>.
> IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool polish.
I guess that's aimed at me? :D Sorry for missing the new vote thread. I'll
go and do the thing now.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:34 AM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, team.
>
> I'm concerned about lack of participation on the zipkin-api vote. I'm
> concerned it might be because people expect a one-line command to work
> flawlessly, and they saw the scary output I pasted, and aren't
> interested in trying.
>
> The scary output is about things that are not required for ASF
> verification. For example, there is no requirement for congruence
> between a repo and a dist, and there's certainly no requirement for
> unit tests inside a source dist.
>
> Concretely speaking, I think any "extra steps" we place on ourselves
> should be non-blocking and non error causing. If they do accidentally
> cause errors, please consider it a glitch and move on to vote. Voting
> helps folks out of the task of RM and allows us to proceed.
>
> Most important example is the assumption that compiling IDL stubs must
> be done automatically and also by maven. There is no such requirement
> in ASF. It just says people can test, aka build the stubs, if they
> have the tools, ex protoc or thrift compiler, or swagger codegen. It
> is quite a reach to think a multi-language IDL must include automation
> that is driven by maven (a java project) for example.
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
>
> We have a lot of votes right now and most are volunteers.. release
> management locks someone up until votes not only proceed here, but
> also into the IPMC. IMHO that means prioritizing voting over tool
> polish. Everyone who is on the IPMC can vote, if you have a couple
> minutes, please help vote this one.
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0d121cede77529c339e181036b79fde8a52e7809eea1322aa6e8f3fb@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
>
--
Zoltán Nagy
https://abesto.net