From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 15:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20150505190702.GC27259@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Wiles, Keith" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0CA4031C-561F-4BB9-8B14-674D6D99EE6E-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 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 w= rote: > >>>=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 thre= ad 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 fea= tures > >>>> of=20 > >>>> various MUAs, I'm not sure that we're looking at this from the rig= ht > >>>> angle. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I'm just trying to figure out how to get DPDK in the place where t= he most > >>>> eyeballs are, rather than trying to drag the eyeballs to the place= where > >>>> DPDK=20 > >>>> is. > >>>=20 > >>> +1, I agree with this statement completely and I feel discussions a= bout an > >>> MUA is non-productive and out of scope. > >>=20 > >> +1. I=E2=80=99ve avoided the whole discussion, because =E2=80=A6 ok= , =E2=80=9Cnon-productive and out of scope=E2=80=9D is a polite way of sa= ying it. > >>=20 > >> jim > >=20 > > Very well, since you seem to want to avoid talking about ways to get = what 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 git= hub, and as > > supporting reasons, listed a plethora of features that you liked abou= t the site. > > This entire subtread has been meant to illustrate how you can have th= e features > > you want that you see as adventageous in the github environment witho= ut actualy > > moving to github. We've focused on email quote collapsing because we= kept > > responding to one another, though I'm sure we could have the same deb= ate on any > > one of the workflow features github offers. > >=20 > > Can we all agree then, that for the list posted in your email above, = any github > > environmental feature can be recreated with proper tooling, available= today, > > without forcing the github environment on everybody? Further, can we= agree > > that, given that those features are not unique to github, they are no= t > > compelling reasons to move the project there? >=20 > Neil (I had to type this on my phone so please forgive any typos or oth= er 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 = being able collapse threads is not the point here and I have tried to red= irect you politely to the points moving DPDK to github.=20 >=20 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 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: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017233.html http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017247.html Its you and Matthew that seem to be fixed on asserting that I'm somehow focused on only choosing a mail client=20 http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017294.html 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. 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. 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. > As I and others have pointed out GitHub offers a huge number eyes for D= PDK community. GitHub offers a different set of processes and tools, whic= h we do not have to create. Moving to GitHub is a change for the communit= y and I feel a good change for the better.=20 >=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. > For your statements above I say NO we do not agree as much as your argu= ments around a single feature of an email client is not a compelling reas= on to accept your statements.=20 >=20 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? > Github gives us the DPDK community a better and more widely accepted pl= ace to allow DPDK to grow and become the open source project we all want = IMO.=20 >=20 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. > I want to be polite here and we are not going to agree with keeping DPD= K as it is today. We need to grow and change is the only way, I believe m= oving to GitHub gives the best support and eyeballs on DPDK to grow.=20 >=20 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. > The tools supported on GitHub are different and yes you may need to cha= nge. 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 easier for move people to understand plus use.=20 > o Yes, Assuming that we make the change. But clearly we still have lots of= debate around weather or not thats a remotely good idea. > We could spend a lot of time and money to update the current system, bu= t why when we could start the move to GitHub today and use those tools fo= r free.=20 >=20 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? 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. =20 > I do not want this to become a flame war or something like it. I want u= s to try and figure out how we can improve the DPDK community. I can see = keeping DPDK the way it is today, but this will stagnate DPDK IMHO and no= one wants this to happen.=20 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). >=20 > I do not want to split the DPDK community or try alienating any one.=20 >=20 No one does. > Please take a breath and relax as we all want the best for DPDK.=20 >=20 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. Regards Neil