+1 to this. First and foremost we're looking for a way to summarize and
document the outcome of discussions and decisions made. That's what QUIPs are
for.
Arguing about whether gerrit is the perfect tool for reviewing QUIPs is besides
the point. It is a tool that'll work better than email discussions (as we're
also seeing in this thread), and it's a tool we all are using daily and that we
know. And btw, it's being used for documentation changes and review as well.
And I'd rather work with gerrit (with all it's deficiencies) than introduce yet
another separate tool that doesn't fit into our workflow.
Cheers,
Lars
On 21/11/16 21:11, "Development on behalf of André Pönitz"
<development-bounces+lars.knoll=qt...@qt-project.org on behalf of
apoen...@t-online.de> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:06:52AM +0000, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Giuseppe D'Angelo:
> >> I would also like to point out that, despite we have a repository, we
> >> still don't have a tool for properly discussing the actual content of
> >> QUIPs.
> >>
> >> * Gerrit does not work because comments cannot be threaded, they
> >> don't stick to multiple reviews, and they can be ignored
> >> * Email does not work (it may work for the overall direction, but not
> >> for the in depth discussion) because a single message may cover
> >> multiple discussion points, disrupting the threading, and
> >> discussion points can get ignored (*)
>
> All of which plays into my desire to introduce you all to Critic [0]
Guys,
the idea of QUIPs was to *fix* a problem, namely the current inability
to pinpoint results of mailing list discussion. This *is* a problem for
the Project, as lazy consensus on the mailing list is *the* official
decision making process in the Qt Governance model, but it works in
practice rather accidentally, if at all.
Discussions are observed to deteriorate, develop into completely
unrelated discussions, and even if something appears like consensus or
the discussion dies, it typically turns out that different people think
differently about what the consensus actually was, and the discussion
re-starts half a year later.
You both nicely demonstrate that this problem exist, thank you for that,
but beyond that this particular sub-discussion misses the point.
QUIPs were not meant to require new or different tooling, and I still
believe such will be needed.
The rough idea is that a topic is presented as usual on the mailing
list, and when someone, usually the original proponent, gets the feeling
that the usual rounds of bike-shedding, trolling and name-calling is
over, and the occasional sensible arguments all have been heard, writes
up what appears like a potential consensus and puts that on Gerrit,
where some review process commences.
The only difference to a normal review process I'd like to see would be
a *much* higher bar for approval, to ensure that QUIPs are really close
to consensus and to ensure some consistency within the set of QUIPs.
None of this requires new tools, certainly not the bootstrapping of
the first QUIP. There's also nothing changing processes, so everybody
will be free to continue to present his views on his favourite tools
in the future, but for now I'd really like to get this here done.
IMNSHO it boils down to the question: Does anybody have any fundamental
problem with main idea of having documents summarizing the lazy consensus
of certain mailing list discussions? If not I'd call that a lazy
consensus and would ask to proceed with reviewing the final wording
on Gerrit.
Andre'
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
