Thomas Koch 2011-11-02, 09:57
Benjamin Reed 2011-11-02, 13:26
Camille Fournier 2011-11-02, 14:01
Patrick Hunt 2011-11-02, 15:50
Ted Dunning 2011-11-02, 16:34
Patrick Hunt 2011-11-02, 17:10
Ted Dunning 2011-11-02, 18:15
Patrick Hunt 2011-11-02, 18:23
Ted Dunning 2011-11-02, 18:26
I don't mean to interrupt the love story of this thread, but I'd like
to add a small comment.
It might not be easy to come up with such a list, but in general, it
sounds like a good idea to have a set of guidelines, accepted by the
community, that we could use to reject contributions. Otherwise, it
becomes a matter of taste, which is difficult to manage when we have
tens of people contributing. Even though it might be virtually
impossible to get rid of taste completely, we need a mechanism that
enables us to reject contributions without feeling guilty about doing
a disservice to the community. After all, I believe one of our key
goals is to maintain a community and to attract valuable
contributions, not to push people away without a reason. Any reason we
use to reject contributions should ideally be supported by the
community and should not be unilateral.
If I'm alone on this thought, then I'm happy to drop it, but otherwise
it would be great to hear some thoughts on how to get something like
this going. I think we already have some guidelines in the
documentation, but if I remember correctly, they are kind of weak with
respect to the perspective I'm laying above.
On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Ted Dunning
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also think that Zookeeper has lots of technical debt, partly
>>> because we
>>>> didn't get to start with a codebase designed for testing. Paying
>>>> is always extremely painful. We have a payment due.
>>> Ted, no disrespect but put your money where you mouth is, start
>>> reviewing patches if you feel strongly.
>> Guilty (mostly) as charged.
>> I have only been able to review a few of the patches. My work
>> schedule is
>> heinous right now.
> Totally understand (I'm in the same boat wrt being overloaded). Hope
> you took it in the context I meant it. We can't do hugs through email
> -- raincheck for next time we meet f2f. ;-)
>>> So far I've taken the brunt of
>>> doing the reviews from Thomas and the rest of the community is just
>>> getting pissed off by his attitude.
>> I have also tried to work on this issue. I have met with Thomas in
>> and provided private coaching (with limited, but non-zero
>> success). I also
>> have privately mediated some misunderstandings.
>>> It doesn't matter what someones contributions might be, if they
>>> work with the community.
>> Very true. That is why I have tried to work to help Thomas learn
>> how to
>> work with this community. It isn't all about a snapshot in time;
>> can develop new skills.
> That's the thing, so far everyone has been trying (incl Thomas) but we
> are still seeing friction. Perhaps it's just the limited time
> available, pressure to get 3.4.0 out, and non-alignment btw Thomas's
> interests and our current goals?
direct +34 93-183-8828
avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
Benjamin Reed 2011-11-03, 20:46