[Contrib: Evaluation System] Notice: Merging EVALSYS-861 to trunk?

Thu Jun 24 09:47:33 PDT 2010

+1 on all points except point 4 w.r.t. new features. Ideally only bug fixes should go into trunk without a major notification to list or authorization from the PMC unless a developer needs a second look at things. Apart from Aaron, most of the developers currently involved may not have knowledge of the entire Evals system so the PMC can be involved in approving bug fixes in the api's or impl's. One assumes that all checkins have a Jira and that the PMC list has a feed to follow new Jiras.

New features would need a discussion.

We need to freeze trunk at some point soon so that the tagging process can start. UCT updates it's branch with latest code from trunk from time to time, so we running in a staged 'freeze' mode as it is. 

Cheers

--
Lovemore Nalube
OLE Developer (Vula)
University of Cape Town
http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/LovemoreN

>>> On 6/23/2010 at 7:02 PM, in message <AANLkTimRxtf4NP5QlcXVPqiNHxB82sq9iL1YPdF2a4gC at mail.gmail.com>, Aaron Zeckoski <azeckoski at unicon.net> wrote:

I disagree on point 4 because of the difficulty in undoing a major
change. I think features need to be discussed. We have proven that we
need a gate in order to force discussion of major feature changes to
the system and I am not in favor of removing it less than a week after
it was setup.
I am fine with meeting every once in awhile to discuss things but if
that causes too many delays then I guess it is not a good idea. We can
try it.

The other points sound fine though they will all require effort and a
commitment from UM to dedicate someone's time to doing them.

-AZ

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Matthew Jones <jonespm at umich.edu> wrote:
> In reading through this, I think we should consider taking a step back and
> getting the evaluation project setup like a mini Sakai-project. There
> appears to be enough distributed interest and necessity for this to happen.
> The biggest problem it seemed to me from the BOF is that there hasn't active
> release management (branching/tags) of evaluation done in over a year. So
> everyone is taking HEAD of trunk as being the best version of evaluation to
> run.
> So that's the first problem that needs to be addressed by this PMC. I will
> volunteer to assist with the release management if my project manager
> agrees.
> As a initial plan:
> 1) PMC should choose a revision of trunk to make as the initial 'stable'
> branch of evaluation. Perhaps the version that longsight is using (since
> this is the newest of all the versions on [1]) is a good one?
> 2) We will make a branch (1.3.x) and tag this as a RC (since people are
> running it already). QA will run through it and bug fixes will be
> made/merged. This can be setup as an independent release project so it's
> built on builds.sakaiproject and easier to include as well.
> 3) Only bug fixes will be made to the branch. Once QA is satisfied, a final
> tag will be made.
> 4) Meanwhile, features (and other active work like this) can still be made
> against trunk (without individual issue approval) in preparation for the
> next release. Nobody should be running because they can run the branch/tag.
> This will be tracked in jira. Developers like Jim shouldn't have to ask
> permission (48 hours or else), but they might have their item removed or
> changed in an final release.
> PMC can then meet to discuss (all at one time, every few weeks? once a
> month?) what should make it to the next release. Developers would either
> have to remove/hide items that are decided as not wanted or resolve
> them. This process has worked pretty well for the RM meetings, and it's
> unproductive to dwell over each issue one at a time.
> -Matthew
> [1] http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/EVALSYS/Adopters
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Jim Eng <jimeng at umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> There is no hurry.
>>
>> Just a comment on process: I did understand that the members of this
>> committee would essentially have veto power, which I would interpret as
>> power to ask for refinements in proposed merges.  I did not understand that
>> it would take unanimous affirmative vote of the members of the committee to
>> get anything into trunk.
>>
>> This proposal has no impact other than the need for a database change. We
>> have SQL for creating new tables with the proposed change, but I haven't yet
>> written the SQL for adding the new column in all dialects.  So I will
>> withdraw this request.  I would rather experiment with process relative to
>> some change with actual impact that warrants that kind of consideration.
>>  I'll resubmit this once we get the process worked out.
>>
>> In the meantime, if Michigan goes to trunk, we'll have to apply a patch
>> each time we adopt a new version of evalsys.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>
>> > I think I would prefer we arrange a short meeting where Jim can take
>> > us through the impact. I can be pretty flexible on times this week but
>> > Lovemore might not be available (travel) so we might have to wait. I
>> > don't think there is a need to rush anything right?
>> > Does that seem ok?
>> > -AZ
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Sean DeMonner <demonner at umich.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >> What else do we need to do?
>> >>
>> >> Jim,
>> >> Per our discussion in Denver, I think we need to get positive
>> >> confirmation
>> >> from at least the four members of new PMC (of which you are one) before
>> >> anyone checks in changes to trunk. I don't think a non-response within
>> >> 48
>> >> hours can or should be considered a green light for checking in
>> >> changes.
>> >> That said, I think the four members of that team need to be highly
>> >> responsive -- if only to say, "I need more time to assess this change."
>> >> If
>> >> we don't get reasonable response times (and I'd leave it to that team
>> >> to
>> >> define "reasonable") then we've essentially locked up development with
>> >> a
>> >> slow moving committee which isn't a good thing either.
>> >> I know we reviewed these changes in detail several months ago, and that
>> >> you're eager to get them checked in, but I'd like to give our new
>> >> process a
>> >> chance.
>> >>
>> >> So, what do Rick, Lovemore and Aaron think of Jim's proposal?
>> >> SMD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 22, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Jim Eng wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Based on Sean's response, I guess I don't understand what process was
>> >> approved.  I am submitting this change for approval even though we
>> >> agreed on
>> >> it a few months ago exactly because it was not merged at that time and
>> >> we
>> >> now have a more formal process.  So I am saying I would like to go
>> >> ahead
>> >> with the proposed change unless there are objections within 48 hours.
>> >>  I am
>> >> publishing it to the list as a notice of the proposed change and
>> >> invitation
>> >> for comment.  What else do we need to do?
>> >> BTW, Matthew Jones reminded me that there is also a ddl change in this
>> >> ticket.  I will provide sql for the database change.  The ticket
>> >> already
>> >> shows the changes in the sql for creation of the database tables.
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 22, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Sean DeMonner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim,
>> >> At the BoF in Denver last week we discussed a new process for merging
>> >> changes to trunk; excerpt from notes at http://typewith.me/rN96pc2gJ3 :
>> >> --------------
>> >> Proposal: Apache-style PMC for code changes to trunk (technical
>> >> leadership).
>> >> Members have veto power.
>> >> Nominations: Jim Eng (UM), Aaron (Unicon), Rick (UMD), Lovemore (UCT).
>> >> Output of the team: features that go in should be sent to the list as
>> >> individual emails. Preferably before but definitely when the feature
>> >> goes in
>> >> -------------
>> >> So let's follow our (new) process and see what that team has to say
>> >> with
>> >> regard to merging these changes.
>> >> SMD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Jim Eng wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We discussed this several months ago with general agreement that it
>> >> would be
>> >> OK to merge some work done back in February to trunk.  The work is
>> >> described
>> >> here:
>> >>
>> >> http://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/EVALSYS-861
>> >>
>> >> I thought I had merged it, but I just discovered it has not been
>> >> merged.
>> >>
>> >> To review, this adds a member variable named "localSelector" to the
>> >> EvalEvaluation class (along with a setter and getter) and it adds a
>> >> column
>> >> in the database for this property in the EVAL_EVALUATION table.  This
>> >> makes
>> >> it possible for institutions to set this column in some way (in a
>> >> provider,
>> >> for example, or in import code) and then use it to select evals and
>> >> other
>> >> entities for export later.  The rest of the EVALSYS codebase ignores
>> >> this
>> >> value.
>> >>
>> >> Michigan has had this change in production since February with no ill
>> >> effects.  The JIRA ticket indicates that Maryland would like to use
>> >> this as
>> >> well, and that Maryland is interested in providing a UI for setting
>> >> this
>> >> value when creating or modifying an evaluation, but that work has not
>> >> been
>> >> done and is not part of the current proposal.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, we had approval of this a few months ago, but since the
>> >> change
>> >> was not merged to trunk at that time, I thought it would be prudent to
>> >> announce it again and give 48 hours for comment before merging it to
>> >> trunk.
>> >>  So I will merge these changes to trunk unless there are objections
>> >> before 5
>> >> p.m. EDT Thursday.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ==========================================================
>> >> Sean DeMonner, IT Senior Project Manager, CTools Implementation Group
>> >> Digital Media Commons @ The Duderstadt Center, U-M      (734) 615-9765
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> SMD.
>> >>
>> >> ==========================================================
>> >> Sean DeMonner, IT Senior Project Manager, CTools Implementation Group
>> >> Digital Media Commons @ The Duderstadt Center, U-M      (734) 615-9765
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> evaluation mailing list
>> >> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
>> >>
>> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to
>> >> evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> >> with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Aaron Zeckoski - Software Engineer - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> evaluation mailing list
>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
>>
>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to
>> evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of
>> "unsubscribe"
>
>

-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Engineer - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
_______________________________________________
evaluation mailing list
evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"

###
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN 

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.

###

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/evaluation/attachments/20100624/addcddcf/attachment-0001.html 