Renovate OpenTracing project organization

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Issue by bensigelman Wednesday Oct 26, 2016 at 22:33 GMT Originally opened as https://github.com/opentracing/opentracing.io/issues/144

OpenTracing has come a long way in less than a year! We hit a 1.0 spec, have a shiny website, linked up with CNCF, and so on. Certain things that we've been doing "out of habit" probably ought to be changed now that things are a little more stable. This issue is a proposal about same.

Briefly, these are the problems I'd like to solve:

the "docs repo" (i.e., this github repository) is an odd place to discuss big semantic things, yet that's where those discussions take place
the "weekly meeting" (sic) has been less-than-weekly lately given the lack of urgent topics to discuss; it's also at an inconvenient time for folks in many TZs (esp Europe)
we don't have a good place to make changes that affect the semantics / reserved tags / etc of the downstream repos

My proposal is to...

create a new repo called github.com/opentracing/common
migrate all non-docs-site issues in this (github.com/opentracing/opentracing.io) repo over to opentracing/common... there's a script for that, hopefully it works
actually make good on https://github.com/opentracing/opentracing.io/issues/76 and add some .yaml-style data to opentracing/common as well
generally try to conduct consequential discussions via Github Issue, linking from Gitter where appropriate
for things that are hard to decide about via Github, we will push agenda items onto a "monthly OT committer call"
- (for more urgent matters, ad hoc hangout calls are fine, etc)
keep up with quarterly calls for anyone who cares about OT, even if they're just in an adjacent project

Concerns about the above? Errors of omission? Other thoughts?

alphabetical cc: @adriancole @basvanbeek @beberlei @bg451 @cwe1ss @dawallin @dkuebric @jmacd @lookfwd @michaelsembwever @oibe @slimsag @yurishkuro

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Comment by cwe1ss Friday Oct 28, 2016 at 10:03 GMT

Sounds great! My only small concern is the repo-name common as it's not clear to me whether it's about the standard itself or common programming tools/libraries/etc. Would using spec, specification, standard, discussions, ... be a better choice?

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Comment by yurishkuro Friday Oct 28, 2016 at 17:04 GMT

+1 for specification

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Comment by adriancole Saturday Oct 29, 2016 at 00:50 GMT

ex in zipkin, we have zipkin-api for the thing holding the specs (openapi, thrift definitions), though that might not be the same (since maybe the output of the discussions won't be in the same repo)

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Comment by bensigelman Saturday Oct 29, 2016 at 14:41 GMT

@cwe1ss good idea re specification -- should make things clearer.

opentracing-importer commented 7 years ago

Comment by bensigelman Sunday Oct 30, 2016 at 19:58 GMT

In light of the lack-of-complaints here, I've cancelled the formal gcal invite for the weds weekly meeting since it's going to die. :) In doing so I realized that the invite list had fallen out-of-date anyway.

bhs commented 7 years ago

Well, the importer thing works, at least to a first approximation... I'll give people a few days to say "STOP STOP TERRIBLE IDEA" before doing this for all non-documentation issues (including closed ones).

bhs commented 7 years ago

Well, the migration tool was a total fail. It has lots of soft-errors and was only partially migrating issues.

I decided to just do them manually. :-/ Sad times.

But what's done is done! With that migration behind us, I will now go through and update the docs site to point to the right place(s) and fix a few other issues in the documentation spec along the way.

bhs commented 7 years ago

Oh, PS: all imported issues have the imported label and can be found here: https://github.com/opentracing/specification/labels/imported

wu-sheng commented 7 years ago

@bensigelman , May be you should add all contributors, for OpenTracing spec or Platform-impl , to the Collaborators list of this repo?

Because this repo is only used in discussion, few people will become contributors. It will be hard to tell the diff when read the issue comments. This is not so cool.

bhs commented 7 years ago

@wu-sheng I understand what you're suggesting, but I'm reluctant to pursue that path since it will be difficult to maintain. I think we just need better docs and pointers to the specification repo, or that's where I'd like to start.

wu-sheng commented 7 years ago

That's OK. Add a spec issue link to the website. Maybe better.

bhs commented 7 years ago

(see https://github.com/opentracing/specification/pull/20)

bhs commented 7 years ago

See https://github.com/opentracing/specification/pull/39

opentracing / specification

Renovate OpenTracing project organization #1