Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

From: Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com>
Date: Apr 22, 2024, 21:12 UTC
Message-ID: <CAJoAoZmR37h5XLa4NnJ+5iZfLNJVfzBgRs4bvaJN4sa=UDtxNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1q6xw6hv.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:18 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>
> Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> writes:
>
> > Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process
> > evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the
> > list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be
> > easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in.
> > ...
> > So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we
> > should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what
> > they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my
> > predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad.
>
> Isn't it a bit too late to say "if nobody disagrees with", after it
> was pointed out that the world around here does not work that way
> (yet) about a week ago?

Well, so far we heard from one person who perceives it as status quo (the author), one person new to the project, the maintainer, and me :) I think Josh is working on a v2 with links as you asked.

I have certainly followed the process Josh described here for a couple of large projects coming from my team - to mind, config-based hooks, submodules UX proposal, and libification proposal all came with discussion before any patches. I'd love to hear from others who have been implementing large-scale changes in a different way, like brian, or Taylor and the other GitHub folks, too - if this patch is too different from what actually happens with their work, let's trim until it isn't, instead.

Show 15 quoted lines

>
> If we have an agreeable v2 already posted on the list that I missed,
> then sorry, please disregard the above comment.
>
> I still don't think it captures "the status quo", which is what you
> want this document to be, about "larger-scale decisions", as the
> Introduction of the document says.  Can we have a set of pointers in
> the document, when it gets rerolled, to an actual example of how we
> made such a larger-scale decision?  Without such illustration with a
> real world example, it looks to me that what it describes is what we
> wish the process to be (which is not necessarily I would object to),
> but labeling it as "describing the status quo" is very much
> objectionable.
>
> Thanks.