This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2023-06-22
Channels
- # ai (1)
- # announcements (4)
- # babashka (23)
- # beginners (27)
- # biff (17)
- # calva (5)
- # clerk (6)
- # clj-commons (27)
- # clj-kondo (35)
- # clojars (12)
- # clojure (27)
- # clojure-denver (3)
- # clojure-europe (71)
- # clojure-norway (7)
- # clojure-spec (5)
- # clojure-uk (2)
- # clojurescript (45)
- # data-science (9)
- # datomic (4)
- # dev-tooling (2)
- # devcards (1)
- # hoplon (2)
- # hyperfiddle (36)
- # introduce-yourself (3)
- # malli (11)
- # missionary (2)
- # off-topic (63)
- # polylith (5)
- # rdf (2)
- # reagent (12)
- # schema (1)
- # shadow-cljs (11)
- # sql (6)
- # tools-deps (23)
- # xtdb (6)
Was just reading https://github.com/clj-commons/meta/blob/master/PROJECT_GOVERNANCE.md
• At this point, it's easier for me to setup PR checks using GitHub actions; I haven't used CircleCI in a few years
• Artefact coordinates: I think it's been pointed out that if changing namespaces, changing artifact coordinates (to clj-commons/xxx) assists as it allows old and new to operate side-by-side if necessary.
I believe the CircleCI issue is because the core maintainers here have plenty of experience with it and have setup it up "globally" -- and have had to take on the management of several otherwise orphaned projects so they wanted consistency. If you plan to continue to main pretty, I don't think it should be under clj-commons -- unless there's a reason you might lose access to AvisoNovate. We've previously rejected requests to transfer (and, in fact, actively reverted some) where the project is actively maintained outside clj-commons and could reasonably stay so. Keeping the project maintained outside clj-commons sidesteps the governance issues.
I didn't see any responses here on moving pretty to clj-commons -- although I just followed the link in the thread from Tuesday and see @U051KLSJF answered in the affirmative 😞
Yeah, I don’t feel strongly that it has to move into clj-commons
Just that I’m excited to see it get maintained
I thought @hlship was already actively maintaining it outside clj-commons?
We had a big discussion some time ago about projects being eligible for clj-commons if they were not likely to be maintained otherwise -- and we transferred several projects out of the organization because they didn't meet eligibility requirements...
Sorry, ignore me then 🙂
@U051KLSJF LOL! I was just surprised that there wasn't actually a discussion about pretty...
I believe the CircleCI issue is because the core maintainers here have plenty of experience with it and have setup it up "globally" -- and have had to take on the management of several otherwise orphaned projects so they wanted consistency. If you plan to continue to main pretty, I don't think it should be under clj-commons -- unless there's a reason you might lose access to AvisoNovate. We've previously rejected requests to transfer (and, in fact, actively reverted some) where the project is actively maintained outside clj-commons and could reasonably stay so. Keeping the project maintained outside clj-commons sidesteps the governance issues.
I might have to move it back 😞. Still, as I outline, AvisoNovate is not active AFAIK; outside of the couple of repos I commit to, there's been no activity since 2018.
I'm not arguing strongly against the move, just as Daniel wasn't arguing strongly in favor. I just think we need a bit more discussion about the situation and the pros and cons, so we can understand what the forces in play are...
Who "owns" AvisoNovate? And how confident are you that you'll always be able to maintain it under that org (and consequent group ID for the coords)?
(I'm asking in the channel because I think it's a bit too easy to miss details posted to a thread, especially if the responses occur some time after the OP and the channel scrolls past it)
I don't know who "owns" AvisoNovate at this time; I suspect that Aviso Novate merged into the larger Fexco company, and from what I can tell, no longer do Clojure development. I reached out to my main contact there over a year ago and never heard back. I think the AvisoNovate github group continues on because there's nobody in charge. I hope I didn't jump the gun on transferring ownership, but since I was already mentally committed to an incompatible version 2, it seemed to make sense.
Looking at the repos under that org, docs is recently updated (by you -- so we need to think about the pretty docs as well as the code), logging was last updated two years ago (by you), and then config five years ago... Are you planning to continue maintaining pretty 1.x as well as creating an incompatible version 2.x? At least for a while?
Going back to a thread to continue this @hlship -- for the 2.x version, since it would be breaking, are you thinking about new namespaces (as well as a new group ID, assuming it moves under clj-commons)?
I would prefer to maintain just the 2.x branch; outside of https://github.com/clj-commons/pretty/issues/93 there isn't a lot of pressing work in the 1.x branch. Yes, a new group id clj-commons, and root namespace clj-commons.
Docs: Pretty 1.x didn't work with cljdocs, but Pretty 2.x does, so there's no need to generate api docs and upload to AvisoNovate/docs the way I have in the past.
@U04V5VAUN would have to speak to the group ID -- clj-commons isn't verified so I don't think new artifacts can be pushed up to that, but org.clj-commons is verified so the group ID could be org.clj-commons/pretty I guess?
OK, hearing more about the fate and state of Aviso Novate and reviewing the repos in that org, as well as now having a better understanding of your plans @hlship, I'm comfortable with a "yes" on the transfer to clj-commons. Thanks for you patience in explaining more about it!
Where was Aviso based? I saw a mention of Ireland in connection with the name...
I think it would be helpful to capture some of the above reasoning & etc. as part of the project governance document. For example, who has a say (and who a veto) on what projects may move under clj-commons?
Killogrin Ireland; I visited there several times, usually spending a week of terrible jet lag and insomnia before flying home to Portland, OR.
A beautiful part of the world! I was born and raised in the North (Belfast and surroundings) during "The Troubles" so we only got across the border occasionally. Sorry about the jet lag 😞 I used to do a lot of transatlantic flights in the '90s before I emigrated from (southern) England to California -- enough that I would fall asleep as soon as the engines started up and wake up as the plane taxied into the arrival bay on the other end... but it took a lot of practice and jet lag to get to that point 🙂
I don't sleep well on planes generally. I used to transit through JFK w/ a six hour layover (lounge access was a must have), then red-eye. The big problem was getting from Dublin to Killorglin. I only did the "drive on the wrong side of the road on these narrow streets while jet lagged and sleep deprived" once.
OK, hearing more about the fate and state of Aviso Novate and reviewing the repos in that org, as well as now having a better understanding of your plans @hlship, I'm comfortable with a "yes" on the transfer to clj-commons. Thanks for you patience in explaining more about it!
Pulling this into the main channel for additional, separate discussion.