[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
|
Hi,
It looks even better than "classic".
David.
On 09. 12. 22 17:38, arjan tijms wrote:
Hi,
Thanks that page will be
really useful.
I can see people are
objecting to planning however it is part of the
EDP
I agree we can and should do a bit better for GlassFish 8
there.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
“4.10 Project Plans
Projects are required to
make a Project plan available to their community
at the beginning of the development cycle for each
major and Minor Release. The plan may be as simple
as a short description and a list of issues, or
more detailed and complex. Subprojects may opt to
include their plans with those of their parent
Project.”
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: 09 December 2022 14:40
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile
support was RE: Proposed Process for New
Features, release plans post 7 Final
My wider point is none of this has been
discussed or is on any release plan. It
all feels random to me and that is not
good for the wider community.
Note
that in open source contributions are often
random. I understand that for people less
involved with open source this may feel
different, but it's simply how things happen
there. In the case of MP Config in GlassFish
we got a surprise contribution from an
external community member. Naturally we should
not reject such a contribution solely based on
it being random and a surprise.
In
Open Source, contrary to a more
corporate environment, contributions are done
by people based on what they see fit and like
to work on (scratching their personal itch).
If the contribution is not in direct conflict
with any of the project plans or goals, we
can't (and shouldn't) ask the contributor to
go back in time and put it in some plan
(ignoring the fact for a moment that time
travel is not even possible). Jokes aside, we
should be thankful for such contributions, as
it shows community interest.
Therefore
the roadmap as we put together here is a good
direction of what the vendors interested in
the project would like to commit to, but if
there's some future contribution not on that
roadmap we should of course consider it at
that moment.
IMHO
reviewing completed PRs for
a new feature is
not a good process.
There sure have been arguments
against and in favour of that
approach. As an example though,
CDI Lite started in the same way.
A PR, based on which discussion
started. Of course a PR is never
necessarily complete. It's a pull
*request* after all, and reviewers
can ask for changes (there's an
explicit option for that in GitHub
reviews).
In the case of the JWT PR, it's in
the core a jar being added, and in
addition to that a runner for the
MP JWT TCK. There would hardly be
more to discuss in an issue as
what the PR entails:
Add a test for this (preferably
the TCK)
This is perhaps different from the
re-design of a subsystem or
development of a complete new
feature with lots of code within
the GF code base itself. That
could have some serious discussion
about how to approach it, but
adding a jar? What would we really
have to discuss upfront there, or
what can we even discuss?
I
see you disagree
with the proposal?
Not necessarily. The
comment above was
primarily about whether
the MP feature additions
had suitable reviews or
not.
Regarding the proposal,
obviously it's good to
discuss things where
needed, but keep in mind
that a discussion needs
at least two parties.
Seeing that the response
to requests for reviews
is lackluster at least,
I'm not holding my
breath really.
That being said, it's
probably good to at
least start discussions
indeed.
I do think we can do
this without an
overbearing process.
Rationale:
It has been
raised to me
as project
lead (Note:
not by Payara
committers)
that the
incorporation
of
MicroProfile
capabilities
without
planning,
discussion and
without
suitable
review has
been
problematic
for some.
The PR to add
MicroProfile
config support
had been open
for 115 days.
That should,
IMHO, be
enough time
for anyone who
may think it's
problematic to
say something
about it. At
least
something from
Oracle took a
look at it,
and then of
course two
people from
OmniFish. The
contribution was from an external person. In open source we should be
happy with
contributions,
and don't
reject them
simply because
we had not put
them on a plan
a year ago
(open source
generally
doesn't work
like that).
The PR to add
MicroProfile
jwt
support was
open for less
time, but
committers
from multiple
organizations
were requested
to review,
including
Payara. It was
their
choice however
to not
respond. Given
the nature of
open source
and version
control people
can raise
concerns and
ask for a
revert after a
PR has been
merged, but
this too did
not happen.
Besides
OmniFish, an
independent
GlassFish
committer
looked at the
PR as well.
Altogether it
seems to me
the reviews
have been
suitable.
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing
list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this
list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list,
visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
--
David Matejcek | OmniFish
david.matejcek@xxxxxxxxxxx | +420 777 601 682
- References:
- [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- From: Steve Millidge (Payara)
- Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- From: Steve Millidge (Payara)
- Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- From: Steve Millidge (Payara)
- Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- From: Steve Millidge (Payara)
- Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
- From: Steve Millidge (Payara)
- Re: [glassfish-dev] MicroProfile support was RE: Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final