You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2018/06/05 00:47:28 UTC
discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
was really the "pusher".
On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
the previous discussion:
In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
e.g.:
LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
fair that they look at version control history?
1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
I agree with Mark that it is a huge and important part of keeping Lucene/Solr a welcoming
community, that the existing committers take time to guide contributors. Keeping the "via"
part of the changelog also makes it very easy to spot potential candiates for committership,
and avoid the "I thought he/she was already a committer" type of comments we've seen :)
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 7. jun. 2018 kl. 14:59 skrev Joel Bernstein <jo...@gmail.com>:
>
> I agree with Marks position on this, the information of who committed has significant value.
>
> Joel Bernstein
> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ <http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I have the same opinion as last time. Taking ownership of actually committing something to the code base is an important attribution and that is why it has been included in CHANGES. I don't agree that it takes away credit at all - via means the commit went through you, which is an accurate reflection of things. Committing others work is a major contribution and should be called out, for the positives that it creates as well as the responsibility for that change you have undertaken by being a very key part of the via route.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:10 AM Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I don't have much of an opinion about "via" one way or the other,
> however I think we should avoid using the mental model of authorship
> for CHANGES.txt.
> We've generally been listing people who made meaningful contributions
> to the patch, including sometimes the person who opened the issue for
> example.
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
> --
> - Mark
> about.me/markrmiller <http://about.me/markrmiller>
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Joel Bernstein <jo...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Marks position on this, the information of who committed has
significant value.
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have the same opinion as last time. Taking ownership of actually
> committing something to the code base is an important attribution and that
> is why it has been included in CHANGES. I don't agree that it takes away
> credit at all - via means the commit went through you, which is an accurate
> reflection of things. Committing others work is a major contribution and
> should be called out, for the positives that it creates as well as the
> responsibility for that change you have undertaken by being a very key part
> of the via route.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:10 AM Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have much of an opinion about "via" one way or the other,
>> however I think we should avoid using the mental model of authorship
>> for CHANGES.txt.
>> We've generally been listing people who made meaningful contributions
>> to the patch, including sometimes the person who opened the issue for
>> example.
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> --
> - Mark
> about.me/markrmiller
>
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I have the same opinion as last time. Taking ownership of actually
committing something to the code base is an important attribution and that
is why it has been included in CHANGES. I don't agree that it takes away
credit at all - via means the commit went through you, which is an accurate
reflection of things. Committing others work is a major contribution and
should be called out, for the positives that it creates as well as the
responsibility for that change you have undertaken by being a very key part
of the via route.
- Mark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:10 AM Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have much of an opinion about "via" one way or the other,
> however I think we should avoid using the mental model of authorship
> for CHANGES.txt.
> We've generally been listing people who made meaningful contributions
> to the patch, including sometimes the person who opened the issue for
> example.
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> --
- Mark
about.me/markrmiller
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
I don't have much of an opinion about "via" one way or the other,
however I think we should avoid using the mental model of authorship
for CHANGES.txt.
We've generally been listing people who made meaningful contributions
to the patch, including sometimes the person who opened the issue for
example.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Alan Woodward <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1 to Robert’s suggestion
> On 5 Jun 2018, at 09:03, Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 to remove the name of the pusher from the changelog
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 06:29, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
> Robert:
>
> I don't have strong feelings either way. Personally I use "via" to
> indicate that I didn't have much to do with the hard parts, I just was
> the "committer fingers". If I've been more involved I just add my name
> as a co-contributor (last). Basically it's a question of "how much
> credit do I think I deserve?". If very little I use "via". If I'm more
> involved, I just add a comma and my name.
>
> But that's a nuance that I suppose varies by person, so I'm happy
> either way. Your point that the tighter integration with Git is well
> taken, we can trace things back to whoever committed things pretty
> easily.
>
> I'm -1 to having to remember to go to another place like a Wiki page,
> too easy to forget. And I don't think we really need it.
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
> >
> > I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
> > was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
> > With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
> > because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
> > was really the "pusher".
> >
> > On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
> > before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
> > who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
> > code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
> > ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
> > linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
> >
> > I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
> > the previous discussion:
> >
> >
> > In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
> > name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
> >
> > e.g.:
> >
> > LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
> >
> > I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
> > to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
> > professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
> > someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
> > fair that they look at version control history?
> >
> > 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Adrien Grand <jp...@gmail.com>.
+1 to remove the name of the pusher from the changelog
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 06:29, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Robert:
>
> I don't have strong feelings either way. Personally I use "via" to
> indicate that I didn't have much to do with the hard parts, I just was
> the "committer fingers". If I've been more involved I just add my name
> as a co-contributor (last). Basically it's a question of "how much
> credit do I think I deserve?". If very little I use "via". If I'm more
> involved, I just add a comma and my name.
>
> But that's a nuance that I suppose varies by person, so I'm happy
> either way. Your point that the tighter integration with Git is well
> taken, we can trace things back to whoever committed things pretty
> easily.
>
> I'm -1 to having to remember to go to another place like a Wiki page,
> too easy to forget. And I don't think we really need it.
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
> >
> > I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
> > was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
> > With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
> > because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
> > was really the "pusher".
> >
> > On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
> > before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
> > who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
> > code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
> > ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
> > linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
> >
> > I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
> > the previous discussion:
> >
> >
> > In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
> > name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
> >
> > e.g.:
> >
> > LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
> >
> > I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
> > to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
> > professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
> > someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
> > fair that they look at version control history?
> >
> > 1.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
Robert:
I don't have strong feelings either way. Personally I use "via" to
indicate that I didn't have much to do with the hard parts, I just was
the "committer fingers". If I've been more involved I just add my name
as a co-contributor (last). Basically it's a question of "how much
credit do I think I deserve?". If very little I use "via". If I'm more
involved, I just add a comma and my name.
But that's a nuance that I suppose varies by person, so I'm happy
either way. Your point that the tighter integration with Git is well
taken, we can trace things back to whoever committed things pretty
easily.
I'm -1 to having to remember to go to another place like a Wiki page,
too easy to forget. And I don't think we really need it.
Erick
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
>
> I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
> was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
> With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
> because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
> was really the "pusher".
>
> On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
> before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
> who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
> code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
> ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
> linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
>
> I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
> the previous discussion:
>
>
> In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
> name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
>
> e.g.:
>
> LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
>
> I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
> to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
> professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
> someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
> fair that they look at version control history?
>
> 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
+1 to remove via if it's a stupid merge.
But there are cases where the patch is taken and improved by the committer. In that case the committer should be added with a comma only.
Uwe
Am June 12, 2018 7:05:57 PM UTC schrieb Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com>:
>FWIW As a non-committer contributor I don't mind the "via". Seems legit
>to
>give the committer some credit for their review and merging work.
>
>On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Michael McCandless <
>lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be)
>> unimportant, and is easily derived from git history if we really do
>ever
>> need it.
>>
>> Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going with them ;)
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached
>[1]
>>>
>>> I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then
>it
>>> was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and
>"contributors".
>>> With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
>>> because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
>>> was really the "pusher".
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
>>> before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
>>> who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
>>> code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
>>> ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
>>> linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
>>>
>>> I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
>>> the previous discussion:
>>>
>>>
>>> In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
>>> name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
>>>
>>> e.g.:
>>>
>>> LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
>>>
>>> I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It
>seems
>>> to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
>>> professor adding a second author by default or something like that.
>If
>>> someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
>>> fair that they look at version control history?
>>>
>>> 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.m
>>> box/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrn
>>> hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>http://www.the111shift.com
--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com>.
FWIW As a non-committer contributor I don't mind the "via". Seems legit to
give the committer some credit for their review and merging work.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be)
> unimportant, and is easily derived from git history if we really do ever
> need it.
>
> Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going with them ;)
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
>>
>> I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
>> was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
>> With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
>> because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
>> was really the "pusher".
>>
>> On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
>> before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
>> who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
>> code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
>> ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
>> linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
>>
>> I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
>> the previous discussion:
>>
>>
>> In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
>> name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
>>
>> e.g.:
>>
>> LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
>>
>> I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
>> to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
>> professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
>> someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
>> fair that they look at version control history?
>>
>> 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.m
>> box/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_PCPgTQrn
>> hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
--
http://www.the111shift.com
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Dawid Weiss <da...@gmail.com>.
> +1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be) unimportant,
I don't care much for credit and am pretty much indifferent to any of
these options. The way I see it is that 'via' is not much
of a credit but a *responsibility* -- the committer should have
reviewed the change she or he is contributing on behalf of the
non-committer. Sure, git history is fine too but note that it's not
ideal -- it may not mention the actual contributor of a patch
if it's a manual application of a diff file and in cases like this
it'd require more complex processing than just scanning through
CHANGES.txt.... so I'd opt for simplicity of keeping it together in
CHANGES.txt (easier to scan through, doesn't take any
credit away from the author), but I'll live with any decision.
Dawid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be)
unimportant, and is easily derived from git history if we really do ever
need it.
Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going with them ;)
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1]
>
> I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it
> was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors".
> With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme,
> because the committer is the contributor and the lucene "committer"
> was really the "pusher".
>
> On the other hand, there were some reasons against removing this
> before. In particular some mentioned that it conveyed meaning about
> who might be the best person to ping about a particular area of the
> code. If this is still the case, I'd ask that we discuss alternative
> ways that it could be accomplished (such as wiki page perhaps
> linked-to HowToContribute that ppl can edit).
>
> I wrote a new summary/argument inline, but see the linked thread for
> the previous discussion:
>
>
> In the past CHANGES.txt entries from a contributor have also had the
> name of the committer with a 'via' entry.
>
> e.g.:
>
> LUCENE-1234: optimized FooBar. (Jane Doe via Joe Schmoe).
>
> I propose we stop adding the committer name (via Joe Schmoe). It seems
> to diminish the value of the contribution. It reminds me of a
> professor adding a second author by default or something like that. If
> someone really wants to know who committed the change, I think its
> fair that they look at version control history?
>
> 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201206.
> mbox/%3CCAOdYfZW65MXrzyRPsvBD0C6c4X%2BLuQX4oVec%3DyR_
> PCPgTQrnhQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>