From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BEEFFA for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 22:15:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2015 13:15:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,374,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="566762671" Received: from orsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.5]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2015 13:15:24 -0700 Received: from orsmsx159.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.24) by ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:15:23 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx120.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.208) by ORSMSX159.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:15:23 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.26]) by fmsmsx120.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.15.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:15:22 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Neil Horman Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community Thread-Index: AQHQhCdlg1RCyqklQ0KpSAVz9bdNYJ1skjqAgAAoJICAAHjOAIAAsDcA//+5cHiAAJ2NAP//nb8X Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 20:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: <00EE80D5-E5A0-4614-BE8F-3522A28E9503@intel.com> References: <20150501164512.GB27756@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150501173108.GA24714@mhcomputing.net> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E602860466B524@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20150504174857.GA27496@mhcomputing.net> <924D0FD1-4A1F-4C3E-929C-38C29AED61D7@netgate.com> <20150505135542.GB27259@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <0CA4031C-561F-4BB9-8B14-674D6D99EE6E@intel.com>, <20150505190702.GC27259@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150505190702.GC27259@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 20:15:26 -0000 Neil and John and anyone else, if I have been rude or ugly in anyway that w= as not my intent. Please accept my apologies for being rude or condescendin= g. Sent from my iPhone >> On May 5, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Neil Horman wrote: >>=20 >> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:43:08PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPhone >>=20 >>>>> On May 5, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Neil Horman wrote= : >>>>=20 >>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On May 4, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Wiles, Keith wro= te: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 5/4/15, 10:48 AM, "Matthew Hall" wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Qiu, Michael wrote: >>>>>>> What mail client do you use? I think mail client supporting thread= mode >>>>>>> is important for patch review. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Like many UNIX people, I use mutt. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> My concern is that, if we're making the widespread adoption, usage, = and >>>>>> contributions for DPDK dependent on selection or debate of the featu= res >>>>>> of=20 >>>>>> various MUAs, I'm not sure that we're looking at this from the right >>>>>> angle. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I'm just trying to figure out how to get DPDK in the place where the= most >>>>>> eyeballs are, rather than trying to drag the eyeballs to the place w= here >>>>>> DPDK=20 >>>>>> is. >>>>>=20 >>>>> +1, I agree with this statement completely and I feel discussions abo= ut an >>>>> MUA is non-productive and out of scope. >>>>=20 >>>> +1. I=92ve avoided the whole discussion, because =85 ok, =93non-produ= ctive and out of scope=94 is a polite way of saying it. >>>>=20 >>>> jim >>>=20 >>> Very well, since you seem to want to avoid talking about ways to get wh= at you >>> want in a workflow, lets go back to where the conversation started: >>>=20 >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017225.html >>>=20 >>> We got into this debate because you wanted to move the project to githu= b, and as >>> supporting reasons, listed a plethora of features that you liked about = the site. >>> This entire subtread has been meant to illustrate how you can have the = features >>> you want that you see as adventageous in the github environment without= actualy >>> moving to github. We've focused on email quote collapsing because we k= ept >>> responding to one another, though I'm sure we could have the same debat= e on any >>> one of the workflow features github offers. >>>=20 >>> Can we all agree then, that for the list posted in your email above, an= y github >>> environmental feature can be recreated with proper tooling, available t= oday, >>> without forcing the github environment on everybody? Further, can we a= gree >>> that, given that those features are not unique to github, they are not >>> compelling reasons to move the project there? >>=20 >> Neil (I had to type this on my phone so please forgive any typos or othe= r statements that may sound odd. I am not trying to be rude in anyway) >>=20 >> I feel you are taking everything out of context here. The email client b= eing able collapse threads is not the point here and I have tried to redire= ct you politely to the points moving DPDK to github. > I'm sorry, I disagree. This is the context in which we began this debate= : > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017229.html >=20 > Matthew stated (and you supported) the notion that collapsing quotes in e= mail > was an adventageous feature to have when reviewing patches. While that m= ay be > true for you (I certainly don't deny it), Everything I have said so far h= as been > an effort to illustrate that that feature (and more generally the workflo= w tools > that github provides) are reproducible using existing infrastructure and = tools > (i.e. that the github environment is not a reason in and of itself to mov= e to > github, as it is not unique to that environment). I have pointed this ou= t > several times: >=20 > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017233.html > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017247.html >=20 > Its you and Matthew that seem to be fixed on asserting that I'm somehow > focused on only choosing a mail client I am sorry if I seem to be doing what you suggest. I agree and email client= feature is not a valid reason to move. To me it was a minor point and me m= oving to another email client with that feature was not a reasonable soluti= on for me. I was trying to move to other topics as I felt we both made our = statements I guess a responded wrong.=20 > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017294.html >=20 > And I don't appreciate it. You and Matthew made statements regarding thi= s as a > feature that you found desierable (among other features). I'm fine with = you > doing so, and I believe that they are worthwhile points of debate. What = I am > unwilling to accept however, is that any assertion to the contrary is, to= use > your words "not the point". If you want to make a statement about the > superiority of a environment, please do so, but understand that there may= be > those who don't agree. If you don't want to have the argument, retract t= he > statement. Your point is taken to heart.=20 >=20 > However, as I stated above more than once now, if we can agree that githu= bs > environment is not unique to github and so not a supporting reason to mov= e the > project there, we can be done with this subthread in its entirety. >=20 > Note that I am not saying here that the tools and workflow that github pr= ovides > are expressly bad, only that they are not unique to github, and so other = reasons > should be considered for the movement. >=20 >> As I and others have pointed out GitHub offers a huge number eyes for DP= DK community. GitHub offers a different set of processes and tools, which w= e do not have to create. Moving to GitHub is a change for the community and= I feel a good change for the better. >=20 > Ok, this is a a better reason to consider: Participant attention. So far= in > other discussion surrounding lack of uptake in developer participation in= DPDK, > the focus has been on ways we can improve the existing community though p= rocess > changes. What your proposing suggests here that the larger problem is no= t so > much process (though I'm sure thats on your mind too), but rather simple > numbers. More people =3D=3D more developers. That could be, I honestly d= on't know. > Fortunately that is a measureable, solvable problem. I'd suggest that 6w= ind > enable analytics for the dpdk.org site so that we can get an idea of how = much > visibility the site currently gets, and that would lead us to making a mo= re > informed decision regarding if, and where the site would be better positi= oned. We can enable the analytics for the site, but the numbers are more subjecti= ve and may not gives us much but we should do it.=20 Github has the eyes and personally I tend to go to the GitHub site first if= I see it on a Google search as it seems to be a safer place to find what I= need.=20 One area I would like to see around how users can work together in a locati= on I see as more of an open place for us to collaborate. Maybe I see this a= s a problem and no one else does.=20 Being able to have a bit more structure around committers and teams to work= together on a specific repo within the community. GitHub has this in place= today and it would be nice to use these tools. Managing commiters, owners and teams is already in place on GitHub.=20 >=20 >> For your statements above I say NO we do not agree as much as your argum= ents around a single feature of an email client is not a compelling reason = to accept your statements. > So you're back to arguing about email clients? Please make a choice. Ei= ther we > debate weather or not the github environment is adventageous, or we don't= . If > you want to debate it thats fine, but my stand is that the tools github p= rovides > are not unique to github and can be implemented with our current environm= ent > easily, if developers individaually choose to. If you don't want to cont= inue > debting it, I suppose thats fine too, but I presume you wish to do that b= ecause > you don't feel like the environment is a point worth arguing over (weathe= r or > not we agree) on it being a non-differentiatior to other setups? I know we could change the site to fit our needs, but is that a reasonable = solution as I see GitHub has these already. Maybe I am throwing the baby ou= t with the bath water, but it does not feel like it to me.=20 >=20 >> Github gives us the DPDK community a better and more widely accepted pla= ce to allow DPDK to grow and become the open source project we all want IMO= . > I'm not sure I can parse this. What do you mean by "better" and "widely > accepted"? Are you referring to your earlier statements regarding DPDK.o= rg > being owned by 6wind? I think that was you that said that (If not I apol= ogize). > If thats the case, I think thats a reasonable argument to make, though I'= ve not > gotten the impression (anecdotally of course) that current developers are > worried about that. If there is generally concern over dpdk.org being ow= ned by > a major contributor, I'd appreciate them speaking up here, as I think tha= t would > be valuabe information to have. Yes I agree hearing from others would be great. I have heard third hand and= that is where my concerns come from, which is not good is some respects.=20 >=20 >=20 >> I want to be polite here and we are not going to agree with keeping DPDK= as it is today. We need to grow and change is the only way, I believe movi= ng to GitHub gives the best support and eyeballs on DPDK to grow. > Please understand, I'm not in favor of keeping everything exactly the sam= e, far > from it. I think there are many process issues that need to be worked ou= t with > the community (review latency, patch application latency, subtree archite= cture > and maintenence, etc), but I think we can handle those issues incremental= ly, > with existing tools and within the existing community. I feel as though = a move > to github (or another hosted site to manage our process) is overkill for = the > problems we have identified currently. >=20 >> The tools supported on GitHub are different and yes you may need to chan= ge. The day to day development will remain the same and as we know that is = the bulk of the work. The pushing of patches will change, which should be e= asier for move people to understand plus use.=20 >> o >=20 > Yes, Assuming that we make the change. But clearly we still have lots of= debate > around weather or not thats a remotely good idea. >=20 >> We could spend a lot of time and money to update the current system, but= why when we could start the move to GitHub today and use those tools for f= ree. > Becuase you're considering the move to be "free". How many developers do= you > loose who prefer the current method of development? How many man hours d= o you > spend setting up the environment, moving the code, getting all the curren= t > participants integrated to the new system, and figuring out the new workf= low? I see the current day to day workflow does not change setting up the github= account and forking the repo is easy. All of the processes after that poin= t up to pushing to the master should be same at least I have not detected a= ny difference.=20 > For that matter, how much time do you think needs investing in updating t= he > current system? I would argue from an infrastructure standpoint, not tha= t much, > though again, thats probably a question to ask of 6wind, who continues to= be > silent here. I'd really like to hear from someone there about their will= ingness > to add people/trees to dpdk.org. +1 >=20 >> I do not want this to become a flame war or something like it. I want us= to try and figure out how we can improve the DPDK community. I can see kee= ping DPDK the way it is today, but this will stagnate DPDK IMHO and no one = wants this to happen. > Stagnates a scary word, but what evidence do you have that its truly > stagnating? Based on raw numbers, the community is growing, just not as = quickly > as some would like, the reasons for which have been at least partially > ennumerated on this list. I think if we continue to discuss incremental = process > changes, we don't need to do something as drastic as move the code reposi= tory > in its entirety (and incur all the process changes that come with it). Stagnate is a strong word and it was not the best way state it. I want the = site to be more friendly to others not just the command line guys like me.= =20 >=20 >>=20 >> I do not want to split the DPDK community or try alienating any one. >=20 > No one does. >=20 >> Please take a breath and relax as we all want the best for DPDK. > Please do not try to position me as somehow angry here. I'm debating you= r > assertions. If you dont' want debate, don't participate. >=20 > Regards > Neil >=20