Re: moving forward—with a plan

2016-05-18 22:02 GMT+02:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>:

> * Move long running discussions to GH issues (better search, actual code
> snippets, easy links between issues and code)
> * Use code comments to discuss the spec and pull requests
> * Maybe move the specification from HTML to markdown and publish with
> GutHub pages (anyone else noticed that the published specification URL
> is down sometimes?)
> * Possibly use raw GitHub URLs + repo tags to track and test-drive past
> and future versions of Hydra.
> * Most people host code on Hydra and so integration between Hydra Core
> repository and implementations' repositories will also be a plus
>
> I would think that with everything (issues/discussions, spec and pull
> requests, wiki and examples) concentrated on GitHub it will be way
> easier for people to discover Hydra, find answers and contribute.

+1 to all of the above.

There's also quite a few things not mentioned above that using GitHub
more extensively gives us:

- We can assign issues to people, so there can be one responsible for
sketching out a proposal, for example.
- We can assign labels to issues to classify their importance and
which area of the specification they belong to.
- We can group issues into milestones, so when all issues belonging to
a milestone are completed, we know that we've reached the milestone
and can move on to the next.

More about how to master issues in GitHub here:

https://guides.github.com/features/issues/

> There is a long way from the mailing list, to agreement, to actually writing
> the spec down.

Indeed. Unless we have specification text in the form of a pull
request, there's not really much concrete value there. I don't say
there's not value in having discussions and reaching consensus, but
consensus alone does not complete the specification.

> I would not like to see Hydra go the way you propose. I fear the such
> cyclical meetings and some kind of task force would actually drive
> people away. This completely loses the openness and gives the impression
> that there is some closed group of dissidents pulling the strings. What
> we need is an open community which will contribute ideas and their
> needs.

I sort of agree with you, Tomasz. I don't mind Hydra having a group of
"core" members that take on a larger responsibility and them having
meetings any way they wish, but I do mind it if that excludes anyone
in any way. Minutes from these meetings and the concrete result of
them should end up in the same tool and process the rest of the Hydra
community uses.

If we agree on using GitHub to a larger extent as suggested by Tomasz,
that means the "core" members should create, resolve, comment and do
everything else on GitHub issues and code comments as outlined by
Tomasz above.

> What if Hydra became more agile: deliver often and fail fast. Currently it
> would seem that we're hardly delivering at all. For me deliverables for any
> single feature should be a clear spec and examples of using that feature.

Yes. Let's just use a 0.x version number until we have a few
independent implementations interoperating fully with the set of
features we have a consensus around on including in an eventual
version 1.0 of Hydra.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        asbjorn@ulsberg.no
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 09:30:05 UTC