[DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

stephenconnolly
Hi all,

I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
respond with their top three of two areas:

* What is working well

* What is not working well

I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
that can be identified

On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.

By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
dev list ;-) )

Thanks in advance for your time,

-Stephen

P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
this again (assuming people like this idea)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Robert Scholte-6
Let me kick off with my list:

What is working well:
1. It looks like we're going to have a new official Maven release soon.
2. Some take their responsibility to start a discussion. It is good to  
rate the impact of changes if we want to stay one of the worlds standards.
3. We're all passionate, wanting to do the best.

What is not working well:
1. Reviewing commits has become too hard with all the "unnecessary"  
commits pulled from master.
2. Not enough consensus, some discussions just keep on going without  
ending, either by majority or a solution which works for all parties.
3. Number of (active) committers is too low for this huge project.

thanks,
Robert

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:56:14 +0100, Stephen Connolly  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we  
> are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the  
> better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I  
> try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

stephenconnolly
Thanks Robert for seeding contributions .

On Sun 12 Mar 2017 at 11:59, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let me kick off with my list:
>
> What is working well:
> 1. It looks like we're going to have a new official Maven release soon.
> 2. Some take their responsibility to start a discussion. It is good to
> rate the impact of changes if we want to stay one of the worlds standards.
> 3. We're all passionate, wanting to do the best.
>
> What is not working well:
> 1. Reviewing commits has become too hard with all the "unnecessary"
> commits pulled from master.
> 2. Not enough consensus, some discussions just keep on going without
> ending, either by majority or a solution which works for all parties.
> 3. Number of (active) committers is too low for this huge project.
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:56:14 +0100, Stephen Connolly
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we
> > are
> > doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> > respond with their top three of two areas:
> >
> > * What is working well
> >
> > * What is not working well
> >
> > I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> > that can be identified
> >
> > On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> > popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> > themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> > work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the
> > better.
> >
> > By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> > the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> > dev list ;-) )
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your time,
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I
> > try
> > this again (assuming people like this idea)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> --
Sent from my phone
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

stephenconnolly
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Here's my list:

Working well:

1. Jenkinsfile and multibranch
2. Actually discussing changes before merging
3. We got a release at last with coloured logging

Needs improvement:

1. I was not happy at all with the chaos in trying to plan out the scope of
3.5.0
2. Very difficult to determine which branches are in-flight for 3.5.0 vs
future versions and who owns the branches, esp when looking from Jenkins
3. Seems to have been an excessive amount of (seemingly needless) rebasing
of branches, with an impact on our capacity to review commits


On Sat 11 Mar 2017 at 21:56, Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>
--
Sent from my phone
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Arnaud Héritier
In reply to this post by Robert Scholte-6
Let's try ...

* What is working well

1. Automations/Processes improvements with Jenkins
2. Many more interactions to get the release out (it revivified the dev
community)
3. After so many years we have coloured logging !!! LOL

* What is not working well

1. Our SCM notifications are really not manageable with Git :( (Too much
noise)
2. Deciding what was in scope/out of scope felt like chaos (but it was
highly required)
3. This release is technically a baby step, now let's really move forward
the project (new POM version ...)

Cheers

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Let me kick off with my list:
>
> What is working well:
> 1. It looks like we're going to have a new official Maven release soon.
> 2. Some take their responsibility to start a discussion. It is good to
> rate the impact of changes if we want to stay one of the worlds standards.
> 3. We're all passionate, wanting to do the best.
>
> What is not working well:
> 1. Reviewing commits has become too hard with all the "unnecessary"
> commits pulled from master.
> 2. Not enough consensus, some discussions just keep on going without
> ending, either by majority or a solution which works for all parties.
> 3. Number of (active) committers is too low for this huge project.
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:56:14 +0100, Stephen Connolly <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>>
>> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
>> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
>> respond with their top three of two areas:
>>
>> * What is working well
>>
>> * What is not working well
>>
>> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
>> that can be identified
>>
>> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
>> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
>> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
>> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>>
>> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
>> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
>> dev list ;-) )
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your time,
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
>> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
-----
Arnaud Héritier
http://aheritier.net
Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hervé BOUTEMY
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
my own topics:

What is working well:
1. we're managing to do releases with confidence on what's inside
2. there are some discussions (even if not in an efficient way: IMHO, some
changes should become proposals in the Wiki)
3. Jenkins hook to check branches (even if not perfect, it works sufficiently
well and was absolutely necessary for our RTC workflow)

What is not working well:
1. git history is messed with "git merge" commits and originating branches:
IMHO we should avoid it
2. commits@ is messed with rebase messages: hard to track really useful
changes
3. I fear once 3.5.0 is out we're back to wild: the process to discuss new
features, or even non-trivial changes, is not yet strong

Thank you for animating the discussion: it's hard but useful

Regards,

Hervé

Le samedi 11 mars 2017, 21:56:14 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

stephenconnolly
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
improve how we work in order to grow our community.

Everyone's opinions are welcome...

We just ask that at this phase you just provide up to 3 sentences on areas
where we work well and up to 3 sentences on areas where we don't (in your
view of the order of importance)

On 11 March 2017 at 21:56, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

gboue
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
What is working well:

1. Despite the mess that resulted in the birth of 3.5.0, the project was
set back on track successfully.
2. There is good feedback on the version, which sets up solid grounds
for the future.
3. Not the only one for this point but... colorized logging is truly great!

What is not working well:

1. We don't have a proper testing protocol (locally before Jenkins,
which OS, which JDK versions...)
2. Still lacking some discussions, notably on the issues that sparked
the reset.
3. There are still a lot of untriaged JIRA issues, for the core, the
plugins or other components. We might need a plan on how to handle them.

Guillaume


Le 11/03/2017 à 22:56, Stephen Connolly a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>


---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Tibor Digana
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
>>What is working well
1. Maven still continues developing new visions and milestones.
2. The discipline to start code review of a branch.
3. Jenkinsfile + automatically tested branches

>>What is not working well
1. long discussions on ML.
I would like to kindly ask you to prefer Pull Requests in GitHub and put your comments directly on the code itself.
2. missing FreeBSD or Solaris, OSX in our CI


On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:26 PM, stephenconnolly [via Maven] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
improve how we work in order to grow our community.

Everyone's opinions are welcome...

We just ask that at this phase you just provide up to 3 sentences on areas
where we work well and up to 3 sentences on areas where we don't (in your
view of the order of importance)

On 11 March 2017 at 21:56, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well
>
> * What is not working well
>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Retrospective-on-Maven-3-5-0-alpha-1-tp5901602p5901835.html
To start a new topic under Maven Developers, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Maven Developers, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

ljnelson
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:26 PM Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
improve how we work in order to grow our community.

I'll bite.  (I can see the dev list, but I don't think I have commit
privileges.)

One of the ways that I would like to contribute is to improve Javadoc
throughout the core of Maven.  Even documenting simple things—like what the
difference between an artifact and a dependency is—could go a long ways
towards improving Maven's standing in the world.  What would be the best
way to do this?

Best,
Laird
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Contributing Javadoc (was Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1)

Christian Schulte
Am 03/13/17 um 23:22 schrieb Laird Nelson:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:26 PM Stephen Connolly <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
> contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
> improve how we work in order to grow our community.
>
> I'll bite.  (I can see the dev list, but I don't think I have commit
> privileges.)
>
> One of the ways that I would like to contribute is to improve Javadoc
> throughout the core of Maven.  Even documenting simple things—like what the
> difference between an artifact and a dependency is—could go a long ways
> towards improving Maven's standing in the world.  What would be the best
> way to do this?

Just create corresponding issues in JIRA and either attach patch files
there or add links to Github pull requests there. Can be any public git
repository. The apache repositories are synced to Github just for
convenience.

Regards,
--
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Christian Schulte
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Am 03/11/17 um 22:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well

The Jenkins support has improved greatly. For me it's very cool to have
the ITs run on Java 7+8 - Linux+Windows. Too few operating systems.
Solaris is a must have. OS X would be nice to have. FreeBSD or OpenBSD
also nice to have.

> * What is not working well

Turns out I just will never become a GIT fan. What works best for me has
been Subversion on the server and GIT locally using git-svn. Very clean
history on the Subversion server side because you can clean up commits
locally (squash, reword, etc.) before committing to the Subversion
repository. I find it quite hard to follow the commit history in GIT.
The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but
the date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the
commit. If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It
could not be more confusing.

Regards,
--
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Jeff Jensen-2
> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but the
date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the commit.
If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It could not
be more confusing.

A couple of thoughts in case they help you.

1. Git has "author date" and "commit date" for each commit.
    * author date is the original date of the first commit, never changes.
    * commit date is the last time the commit was modified (e.g. amended,
committed to a branch).
Each date is useful, depending on the situation investigating.

To help with the date displays, which git client(s) do you use?
  * For SourceTree (free git UI client from Atlassian), it has a "Display
author date instead of commit date in log" config option.  It will also
show both dates in the commit details.

  * For CLI, use the log command's "pretty formatter" (use "git help log"
for lots of details in the "pretty formats" section).  e.g. "git log
--pretty=fuller" shows both author and commit dates (and authors).

2. DeepGit is a free tool that helps with tracing commits.  You may
appreciate it: http://www.syntevo.com/deepgit/
The same company also creates the git UI client "SmartGit", which is free
for non-commercial use.  You may appreciate using it or SourceTree.


Please ask for more git help if you like.  Many people on the list know it
well, and happy to help your productivity.
(I appreciate the issues you find and fix!)


On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 03/11/17 um 22:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we
> are
> > doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> > respond with their top three of two areas:
> >
> > * What is working well
>
> The Jenkins support has improved greatly. For me it's very cool to have
> the ITs run on Java 7+8 - Linux+Windows. Too few operating systems.
> Solaris is a must have. OS X would be nice to have. FreeBSD or OpenBSD
> also nice to have.
>
> > * What is not working well
>
> Turns out I just will never become a GIT fan. What works best for me has
> been Subversion on the server and GIT locally using git-svn. Very clean
> history on the Subversion server side because you can clean up commits
> locally (squash, reword, etc.) before committing to the Subversion
> repository. I find it quite hard to follow the commit history in GIT.
> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but
> the date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the
> commit. If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It
> could not be more confusing.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Anders Hammar
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Thanks for the reminder. :-)

Working well:
1. Strong release lead
2. CI in better shape
3. Good momentum (right now)

Not working well:
1. Scope slipping. "Just one more small thing..."
2. Not a shared view on version meaning (e.g. what's a bug fix release?)
3. Hard to keep up on ML discussions based on issue number (missing context)

Stephen, hats off to you for taking the lead on this release. Having one
person keeping things together for a release is very important IMHO.

/Anders

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
> contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
> improve how we work in order to grow our community.
>
> Everyone's opinions are welcome...
>
> We just ask that at this phase you just provide up to 3 sentences on areas
> where we work well and up to 3 sentences on areas where we don't (in your
> view of the order of importance)
>
> On 11 March 2017 at 21:56, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.
> com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we
> are
> > doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> > respond with their top three of two areas:
> >
> > * What is working well
> >
> > * What is not working well
> >
> > I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> > that can be identified
> >
> > On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> > popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> > themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> > work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the
> better.
> >
> > By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> > the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> > dev list ;-) )
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your time,
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I
> try
> > this again (assuming people like this idea)
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Mirko Friedenhagen-2
In reply to this post by Jeff Jensen-2
 i really appreciate how smooth running about 20 of our inhouse projects
with the alpha did went.

Concerning git clients:
- a really.nice CLI client is called tig, you should try it. Running tig
--all is revealing most things you are used to from UI clients.

All in all I found the discussions very objective, no bad mouthing.

Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile

Am 14.03.2017 01:27 schrieb "Jeff Jensen" <[hidden email]>:

> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but the
date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the commit.
If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It could not
be more confusing.

A couple of thoughts in case they help you.

1. Git has "author date" and "commit date" for each commit.
    * author date is the original date of the first commit, never changes.
    * commit date is the last time the commit was modified (e.g. amended,
committed to a branch).
Each date is useful, depending on the situation investigating.

To help with the date displays, which git client(s) do you use?
  * For SourceTree (free git UI client from Atlassian), it has a "Display
author date instead of commit date in log" config option.  It will also
show both dates in the commit details.

  * For CLI, use the log command's "pretty formatter" (use "git help log"
for lots of details in the "pretty formats" section).  e.g. "git log
--pretty=fuller" shows both author and commit dates (and authors).

2. DeepGit is a free tool that helps with tracing commits.  You may
appreciate it: http://www.syntevo.com/deepgit/
The same company also creates the git UI client "SmartGit", which is free
for non-commercial use.  You may appreciate using it or SourceTree.


Please ask for more git help if you like.  Many people on the list know it
well, and happy to help your productivity.
(I appreciate the issues you find and fix!)


On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 03/11/17 um 22:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we
> are
> > doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> > respond with their top three of two areas:
> >
> > * What is working well
>
> The Jenkins support has improved greatly. For me it's very cool to have
> the ITs run on Java 7+8 - Linux+Windows. Too few operating systems.
> Solaris is a must have. OS X would be nice to have. FreeBSD or OpenBSD
> also nice to have.
>
> > * What is not working well
>
> Turns out I just will never become a GIT fan. What works best for me has
> been Subversion on the server and GIT locally using git-svn. Very clean
> history on the Subversion server side because you can clean up commits
> locally (squash, reword, etc.) before committing to the Subversion
> repository. I find it quite hard to follow the commit history in GIT.
> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but
> the date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the
> commit. If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It
> could not be more confusing.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
In reply to this post by ljnelson
Hi Laird,

On 13/03/17 23:22, Laird Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:26 PM Stephen Connolly <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Gentle reminder. If you can see this thread, you are entitled to
> contribute. This thread is about discovering where the Maven project can
> improve how we work in order to grow our community.
>
> I'll bite.  (I can see the dev list, but I don't think I have commit
> privileges.)

No you have not, cause you are not a committer (yet)...

>
> One of the ways that I would like to contribute is to improve Javadoc
> throughout the core of Maven.  Even documenting simple things—like what the
> difference between an artifact and a dependency is—could go a long ways
> towards improving Maven's standing in the world.  What would be the best
> way to do this?

The best way would be open first a JIRA issue[1] for this after that
create either a patch against maven master (via GitHub add the reference
to the JIRA issue) or just attach a patch to the JIRA issue...

This will help of course...

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise


[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Hi,

On 11/03/17 22:56, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think it is a good thing if we take stock of where we are and how we are
> doing. I would really appreciate if everyone could take a few minutes to
> respond with their top three of two areas:
>
> * What is working well

1. Using Jenkinsfile with branches to test each branch before merging
into master
2. Having discussion about changed/issues which brings different points
of view etc.
3. Getting a new release out of the door after that mess. Thanks to all.


>
> * What is not working well

1. Git email responses for rebased/force branch commits can be improved,
cause it's hard to understand what really has changed. Unclear how to
merge to master; Either real merges or getting fast-forwards only (makes
it easier to read history).

2. Missing Clear Milestone lines; For example:
     Maven 3.5.1 Bug Fixes for 3.5.0
     Maven 3.6.0 What features could be added? For example
                 Advanced life cycle handling etc. ?
     Maven 4.0.0 (POM Format changes; using attributes etc.)
                  I think we can start things here.
     We have enough issues in JIRA to assign them to milestones...

3. Chaning the scope of a discussions and not focusing on a single issue


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

>
> I'll consolidate the responses after 72h and see if there are any themes
> that can be identified
>
> On the stuff that is not working well, I'll try and pick the three most
> popular themes, we can then have a round of discussion on those three
> themes to see if anyone has any ideas to improve those aspects of how we
> work and hopefully we can have some votes to change things for the better.
>
> By the way, this is open to anyone in any way what so ever involved with
> the Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1 effort (assuming you are paying attention to the
> dev list ;-) )
>
> Thanks in advance for your time,
>
> -Stephen
>
> P.S. As alpha-2 is near, I'll probably wait until after 3.5.0 before I try
> this again (assuming people like this idea)
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

Christian Schulte
In reply to this post by Jeff Jensen-2
Am 03/14/17 um 01:27 schrieb Jeff Jensen:

>> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but the
> date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the commit.
> If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It could not
> be more confusing.
>
> A couple of thoughts in case they help you.
>
> 1. Git has "author date" and "commit date" for each commit.
>     * author date is the original date of the first commit, never changes.
>     * commit date is the last time the commit was modified (e.g. amended,
> committed to a branch).
> Each date is useful, depending on the situation investigating.

Yes. It is lacking information about when a commit got added to a
specific branch. Create a branch of master, work on it for a few months,
then merge it back to master. Information about when the months old
commits have been merged to master is missing. Maybe I am just using the
tool incorrectly. Currently I am creating a branch from master to work
on using 'git pull --rebase origin/master' followed by a fast-forward
push to master using 'git push origin branchname:master'. That way the
commits appear in order. If I would do 'git merge' the months old
commits appear at a months old place in time on master with possibly
other commits done in between by others mixed in. This is what 'man
git-merge' tells me is the way things are supposed to be. I am not even
sure I got that correctly.

>
> To help with the date displays, which git client(s) do you use?

git and gitk.

> Please ask for more git help if you like.  Many people on the list know it
> well, and happy to help your productivity.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Regards,
--
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Retrospective on Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1

stephenconnolly
--first-parent

On Wed 15 Mar 2017 at 00:39, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 03/14/17 um 01:27 schrieb Jeff Jensen:
> >> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but
> the
> > date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the
> commit.
> > If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It could
> not
> > be more confusing.
> >
> > A couple of thoughts in case they help you.
> >
> > 1. Git has "author date" and "commit date" for each commit.
> >     * author date is the original date of the first commit, never
> changes.
> >     * commit date is the last time the commit was modified (e.g. amended,
> > committed to a branch).
> > Each date is useful, depending on the situation investigating.
>
> Yes. It is lacking information about when a commit got added to a
> specific branch. Create a branch of master, work on it for a few months,
> then merge it back to master. Information about when the months old
> commits have been merged to master is missing. Maybe I am just using the
> tool incorrectly. Currently I am creating a branch from master to work
> on using 'git pull --rebase origin/master' followed by a fast-forward
> push to master using 'git push origin branchname:master'. That way the
> commits appear in order. If I would do 'git merge' the months old
> commits appear at a months old place in time on master with possibly
> other commits done in between by others mixed in. This is what 'man
> git-merge' tells me is the way things are supposed to be. I am not even
> sure I got that correctly.
>
> >
> > To help with the date displays, which git client(s) do you use?
>
> git and gitk.
>
> > Please ask for more git help if you like.  Many people on the list know
> it
> > well, and happy to help your productivity.
>
> Thanks for the clarifications.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> --
Sent from my phone
Loading...