Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 4.1: LTM release targeted for end of May

[Amye Scavarda <amye@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We could stand to use our words better on this stuff. Even though we've thought about it a lot, it's not always clear about what we mean in the roles and responsibilities.

I'll put a ticket into the Community Working Group to use more words about this.

- amye

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Amye Scavarda <amye@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Responding on the architects question: 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Amar Tumballi <atumball@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>
>> Further, as we hit end of March, we would make it mandatory for features
>> to have required spec and doc labels, before the code is merged, so
>> factor in efforts for the same if not already done.
>
>
> Could you explain the point above further? Is it just the label or the
> spec/doc
> that we need merged before the patch is merged?
>

I'll hazard a guess that the intent of the label is to indicate
availability of the doc. "Completeness" of code is being defined as
including specifications and documentation.

 

I believe this has originated from maintainers meeting agreements [1] . The proposal to make a spec and documentation mandatory was submitted 3 months back and is documented, and submitted for comment @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AFkZmRRDXRxs21GnGauieIyiIiRZ-nTEW8CPi7Gbp3g/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks! This clears almost all the doubts I had :).

The document above refers to Architects - "Now Architects are approved to revert a patch which violates by either not having github issue nor bug-id, or uses a bug-id to get the feature in etc."

Who are they? What are their responsibilities?

In our last reboot of the maintainers readme file, we expanded the architects role:

https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS 

General Project Architects
	--------------------------
	M: Jeff Darcy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
	M: Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Amar Tumballi <amarts@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Pranith Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Shyamsundar Ranganathan <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx>
	P: Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>

What should we work to make more clear about this? 

- amye 

Thanks for that clarification amye. I had a confusion whether the terminology was referring to roles listed in MAINTAINERS file. Now that you've clarified, my confusion is cleared.

 

 

 

The idea is, if the code is going to be released, it should have relevant documentation for users to use it, otherwise, it doesn't matter if the feature is present or not. If the feature is 'default', and there is no documentation required, just mention it, so the flags can be given. Also, if there is no general agreement about the design, it doesn't make sense to merge a feature and then someone has to redo things.

For any experimental code, which we want to publish for other developers to test, who doesn't need documentation, we have 'experimental' branch, which should be used for validation.

 [1] - http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-December/054070.html

--

Pranith

--

Pranith

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

--

Amye Scavarda | amye@xxxxxxxxxx | Gluster Community Lead

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

--

Amye Scavarda | amye@xxxxxxxxxx | Gluster Community Lead

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel