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 2019/05/15 12:03:53 UTC
how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
What is troubling is this one:
"Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
how to build official releases should come first, and using
snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
artifact. [1]
Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
are a terrible support burden.
-A
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@apache.org>.
closing this topic with https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/issues/12
as far as I am concerned.. case closed here.
thanks, ignasi
On 2019/05/15 16:35:47, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see.. if this was about the website, I can imagine there is a lot to
> do there. We haven't done any content work of note since entering.. it
> has all been release engineering in nature. We should track whatever
> that is on https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/
>
> thanks for helping me understand!
> -A
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:28 AM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reading the issue I see the misunderstanding here.
> >
> > So, in my feedback in the previous vote there were two points: README
> > and website.
> >
> > The current README looks fine. In this thread, I was referring to the
> > Zipkin website. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll follow up on
> > the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 18:06, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I added an issue for the mentors to figure out how to handle your
> > > feedback, Ignasi
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin/issues/2597
> > >
> > > take care,
> > > -A
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:36 PM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Ignasi.
> > > >
> > > > There have been several mail threads about how voted source is the
> > > > only thing official, and that it is important that we build things
> > > > from that voted source. For example, these are derived from the
> > > > "convenience binaries" also built from the source on the apache
> > > > repository. As far as I know there is no requirement to even have a
> > > > binary distribution, so I am a bit unclear about this I think if you
> > > > look at some email threads on incubator from the last 6 months it
> > > > certainly is clear that source is official and almost nothing else is
> > > > as clear as that.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think your advice is practical, in other words. You want us to
> > > > point to something that doesn't exist which would only confuse people.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible for you to work with mentors or other IPMC to clarify
> > > > this and that others are following your strict view routinely?
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
> > > > > the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
> > > > > to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
> > > > > artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
> > > > >
> > > > > The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
> > > > > page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
> > > > > links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
> > > > > and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
> > > > > etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
> > > > > responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
> > > > > make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
> > > > > download page.
> > > > >
> > > > > [some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
> > > > > especially for the PMC]
> > > > > The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
> > > > > with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
> > > > > but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
> > > > > provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
> > > > > neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
> > > > > These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
> > > > > software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
> > > > > and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
> > > > > PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
> > > > > achieve that.
> > > > > Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
> > > > > checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
> > > > > binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
> > > > > provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
> > > > > ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
> > > > > distribute them too.
> > > > > [/some context]
> > > > >
> > > > > So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
> > > > > get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
> > > > > the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
> > > > > also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
> > > > > and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
> > > > > keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
> > > > > criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
> > > > > you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
> > > > > you can do this".
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this makes sense,
> > > > >
> > > > > I.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> > > > > > review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is troubling is this one:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> > > > > > master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> > > > > > how to build official releases should come first, and using
> > > > > > snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> > > > > > do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> > > > > > artifact. [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> > > > > > not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> > > > > > are a terrible support burden.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -A
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
I see.. if this was about the website, I can imagine there is a lot to
do there. We haven't done any content work of note since entering.. it
has all been release engineering in nature. We should track whatever
that is on https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/
thanks for helping me understand!
-A
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:28 AM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Reading the issue I see the misunderstanding here.
>
> So, in my feedback in the previous vote there were two points: README
> and website.
>
> The current README looks fine. In this thread, I was referring to the
> Zipkin website. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll follow up on
> the issue.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 18:06, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I added an issue for the mentors to figure out how to handle your
> > feedback, Ignasi
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin/issues/2597
> >
> > take care,
> > -A
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:36 PM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Ignasi.
> > >
> > > There have been several mail threads about how voted source is the
> > > only thing official, and that it is important that we build things
> > > from that voted source. For example, these are derived from the
> > > "convenience binaries" also built from the source on the apache
> > > repository. As far as I know there is no requirement to even have a
> > > binary distribution, so I am a bit unclear about this I think if you
> > > look at some email threads on incubator from the last 6 months it
> > > certainly is clear that source is official and almost nothing else is
> > > as clear as that.
> > >
> > > I don't think your advice is practical, in other words. You want us to
> > > point to something that doesn't exist which would only confuse people.
> > >
> > > Is it possible for you to work with mentors or other IPMC to clarify
> > > this and that others are following your strict view routinely?
> > >
> > > -A
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
> > > > the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
> > > > to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
> > > > artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
> > > >
> > > > The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
> > > > page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
> > > > links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
> > > > and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
> > > > etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
> > > > responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
> > > > make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
> > > > download page.
> > > >
> > > > [some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
> > > > especially for the PMC]
> > > > The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
> > > > with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
> > > > but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
> > > > provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
> > > > neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
> > > > These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
> > > > software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
> > > > and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
> > > > PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
> > > > achieve that.
> > > > Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
> > > > checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
> > > > binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
> > > > provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
> > > > ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
> > > > distribute them too.
> > > > [/some context]
> > > >
> > > > So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
> > > > get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
> > > > the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
> > > > also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
> > > > and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
> > > >
> > > > If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
> > > > keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
> > > > criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
> > > > you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
> > > > you can do this".
> > > >
> > > > Hope this makes sense,
> > > >
> > > > I.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> > > > > review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > > > What is troubling is this one:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> > > > > master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> > > > > how to build official releases should come first, and using
> > > > > snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> > > > > do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> > > > > artifact. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> > > > > not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> > > > > are a terrible support burden.
> > > > >
> > > > > -A
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
Reading the issue I see the misunderstanding here.
So, in my feedback in the previous vote there were two points: README
and website.
The current README looks fine. In this thread, I was referring to the
Zipkin website. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll follow up on
the issue.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 18:06, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I added an issue for the mentors to figure out how to handle your
> feedback, Ignasi
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin/issues/2597
>
> take care,
> -A
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:36 PM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Ignasi.
> >
> > There have been several mail threads about how voted source is the
> > only thing official, and that it is important that we build things
> > from that voted source. For example, these are derived from the
> > "convenience binaries" also built from the source on the apache
> > repository. As far as I know there is no requirement to even have a
> > binary distribution, so I am a bit unclear about this I think if you
> > look at some email threads on incubator from the last 6 months it
> > certainly is clear that source is official and almost nothing else is
> > as clear as that.
> >
> > I don't think your advice is practical, in other words. You want us to
> > point to something that doesn't exist which would only confuse people.
> >
> > Is it possible for you to work with mentors or other IPMC to clarify
> > this and that others are following your strict view routinely?
> >
> > -A
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
> > > the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
> > > to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
> > > artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
> > >
> > > The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
> > > page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
> > > links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
> > > and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
> > > etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
> > > responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
> > > make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
> > > download page.
> > >
> > > [some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
> > > especially for the PMC]
> > > The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
> > > with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
> > > but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
> > > provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
> > > neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
> > > These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
> > > software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
> > > and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
> > > PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
> > > achieve that.
> > > Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
> > > checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
> > > binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
> > > provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
> > > ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
> > > distribute them too.
> > > [/some context]
> > >
> > > So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
> > > get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
> > > the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
> > > also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
> > > and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
> > >
> > > If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
> > > keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
> > > criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
> > > you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
> > > you can do this".
> > >
> > > Hope this makes sense,
> > >
> > > I.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> > > > review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > > > What is troubling is this one:
> > > >
> > > > "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> > > > master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> > > > how to build official releases should come first, and using
> > > > snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> > > > do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> > > > artifact. [1]
> > > >
> > > > Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> > > > not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> > > > are a terrible support burden.
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
I added an issue for the mentors to figure out how to handle your
feedback, Ignasi
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin/issues/2597
take care,
-A
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:36 PM Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Ignasi.
>
> There have been several mail threads about how voted source is the
> only thing official, and that it is important that we build things
> from that voted source. For example, these are derived from the
> "convenience binaries" also built from the source on the apache
> repository. As far as I know there is no requirement to even have a
> binary distribution, so I am a bit unclear about this I think if you
> look at some email threads on incubator from the last 6 months it
> certainly is clear that source is official and almost nothing else is
> as clear as that.
>
> I don't think your advice is practical, in other words. You want us to
> point to something that doesn't exist which would only confuse people.
>
> Is it possible for you to work with mentors or other IPMC to clarify
> this and that others are following your strict view routinely?
>
> -A
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
> > the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
> > to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
> > artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
> >
> > The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
> > page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
> > links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
> > and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
> > etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
> > responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
> > make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
> > download page.
> >
> > [some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
> > especially for the PMC]
> > The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
> > with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
> > but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
> > provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
> > neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
> > These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
> > software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
> > and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
> > PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
> > achieve that.
> > Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
> > checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
> > binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
> > provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
> > ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
> > distribute them too.
> > [/some context]
> >
> > So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
> > get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
> > the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
> > also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
> > and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
> >
> > If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
> > keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
> > criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
> > you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
> > you can do this".
> >
> > Hope this makes sense,
> >
> > I.
> >
> > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> > > review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > What is troubling is this one:
> > >
> > > "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> > > master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> > > how to build official releases should come first, and using
> > > snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> > > do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> > > artifact. [1]
> > >
> > > Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> > > not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> > > are a terrible support burden.
> > >
> > > -A
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Ignasi.
There have been several mail threads about how voted source is the
only thing official, and that it is important that we build things
from that voted source. For example, these are derived from the
"convenience binaries" also built from the source on the apache
repository. As far as I know there is no requirement to even have a
binary distribution, so I am a bit unclear about this I think if you
look at some email threads on incubator from the last 6 months it
certainly is clear that source is official and almost nothing else is
as clear as that.
I don't think your advice is practical, in other words. You want us to
point to something that doesn't exist which would only confuse people.
Is it possible for you to work with mentors or other IPMC to clarify
this and that others are following your strict view routinely?
-A
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
> the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
> to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
> artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
>
> The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
> page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
> links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
> and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
> etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
> responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
> make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
> download page.
>
> [some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
> especially for the PMC]
> The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
> with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
> but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
> provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
> neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
> These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
> software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
> and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
> PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
> achieve that.
> Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
> checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
> binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
> provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
> ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
> distribute them too.
> [/some context]
>
> So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
> get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
> the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
> also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
> and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
>
> If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
> keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
> criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
> you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
> you can do this".
>
> Hope this makes sense,
>
> I.
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> > review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> >
> > What is troubling is this one:
> >
> > "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> > master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> > how to build official releases should come first, and using
> > snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
> >
> > I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> > do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> > artifact. [1]
> >
> > Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> > not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> > are a terrible support burden.
> >
> > -A
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
Re: how do we address QuickStart and not asking users to do things laborious
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
The main problem is that on the current website the Quickstart page is
the only place with instructions on how to get Zipkin, and it points
to using, strictly speaking, non-official-release artifacts and
artifacts that have not been voted upon, such as the Docker image.
The project should have a main Download (or whatever name you prefer)
page that points to the ASF official release as the main option, with
links to the official ASF source release, checksums, signature files,
and some instructions on how to use those files to verify integrity,
etc. Those files are actually the only ones you as a PMC are strictly
responsible for. Any other published content is convenience content to
make users lives easier and should be clearly marked as such in the
download page.
[some context because understanding the "whys" is important,
especially for the PMC]
The reasoning behind this is expectations. Software from the ASF comes
with a set of guarantees enforced by the use of the Apache License,
but also with an additional set of "social" guarantees not directly
provided by the license but enforced by the PMC (project independence,
neutrality, etc) and how the Foundation expects projects to operate.
These guarantees are extremely important for people consuming Apache
software. They are the main value the Foundation provides to end-users
and we want these expectations to be met by all Apache projects. The
PMCs are responsible for doing their best to create releases that
achieve that.
Since the convenience artifacts cannot be subject to the same diligent
checks than source releases (for example you are not inspecting
binaries to check if there is ASLv2 incompatible stuff) we cannot
provide those guarantees there, thus we don't consider those official
ASF releases, although we understand convenience and allow to
distribute them too.
[/some context]
So, each Apache project should have a Download page explaining how to
get the software, and the main option there should be how to obtain
the official artifacts that provide the mentioned above. There can be
also instructions to get convenience binaries and other ways to get
and use the software, but the distinction should be clear.
If that page exists (which is not the case now), I see no issue in
keeping the Quickstart page as-is, as long as we meet the previous
criteria and Quickstart is seen as "hey, to get the official release
you can go here, but if you want to start playing with it right away
you can do this".
Hope this makes sense,
I.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:04, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, all. I went to cleanup things mentioned by Ignasi in his last
> review here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fcc730ad01eb55293f7a174a3b5301f4a277b6222c7bb821d33faf2e@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
>
> What is troubling is this one:
>
> "Quickstart page should encourage using official releases instead of
> master. It is good to have instructions for that, but instructions on
> how to build official releases should come first, and using
> snapshots/devel should be clear marked as non-official ASF releases."
>
> I'm not sure what is meant by this. Our quickstart doesn't attempt to
> do anything from master, as it takes from latest published maven
> artifact. [1]
>
> Ignasi, can you clarify what you meant? Definitely we want people to
> not build on their own as this would lead to more custom servers which
> are a terrible support burden.
>
> -A
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-website/blob/master/quickstart.sh#L18
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org