search

rustwasm / wasm-pack

📦✨ your favorite rust -> wasm workflow tool!
https://rustwasm.github.io/wasm-pack/
Apache License 2.0
6.27k stars 409 forks source link

building a long term maintenance strategy for wasm-pack #928

Open ashleygwilliams opened 4 years ago

ashleygwilliams commented 4 years ago

there should be a set of people who maintain this project. let's find that set of people and figure out how to set them up for success.

if you are interested in becoming a maintainer of wasm-pack, please reach out to me at ashley666ashley@gmail.com.

00imvj00 commented 4 years ago

I really really want to get on this. very new to wasm and good in rust, but the heart is there. :)

AlphaHot commented 4 years ago

@ashleygwilliams I'd like to help, but I'm new to wasm

dakom commented 4 years ago

I'm trying to understand the situation here... the repo owner is "rustwasm" but the publishing owner is only "ashleygwilliams"

Isn't it standard practice for rustwasm crates to be publishable, i.e. co-owned on crates.io, by individuals and the rustwasm team?

I get what you're saying - it's not really solving the problem 100%, but surely it's a step in the right direction.... the decision to deliberately withhold sharing those rights with the team seems unnecessarily negative, almost spiteful, from the outside - which is even more strange since you're on the team and generally seem to care a lot about community developer relationship issues!

Can you please just grant the rustwasm team the rights on crates.io, even if you think it won't solve the problem, it surely doesn't hurt and then perhaps the team will invite new members down the line who can help maintain the package (both on a code level and in terms of publishing releases)

dakom commented 4 years ago

How is my point "off-topic"?

there should be a set of people who maintain this project. let's find that set of people and figure out how to set them up for success.

I'm merely suggesting that the set of people you add should include the rustwasm team, which is an entity that exists now. It's a positive step you can take right this minute towards a long term maintenance strategy.

ashleygwilliams commented 4 years ago

I am not transferring the publish rights to a defunct group.

colelawrence commented 4 years ago

I can't offer a lot of support for new feature development, but I would be happy to find lightweight or advisory responsibilities over pull requests and direction. My company's central product is built with wasm-pack and TypeScript (and several bespoke codegen tools for Rust and TypeScript type safety).

dakom commented 4 years ago

I am not transferring the publish rights to a defunct group.

No need to transfer, just add them as additional owners so that the group can publish if/when it is "revived".

As far as I can tell this is the same approach taken by several other crates, such as the ubiquitous wasm-bindgen

Please try and look at this from another perspective... pretend you had no personal involvement with this at all. The homepage of the team has a big purple button suggesting to download wasm-pack. The repo is owned by the team. Yet the team has no rights to publish it. Additionally there have been complaints about this from community members as well as former members of the team. Doesn't this all strike you as fundamentally broken and wrong??

I do hope the rustwasm group gets back to its former glory days, and I think adding "them" as co-owners here is a step towards that direction. Even if it doesn't have much of an impact, it's the right move. Just do it and stop playing games, please.

ashleygwilliams commented 4 years ago

@dakom if you use this issue to continue to press this i am going to have to take more serious moderation actions. you have my personal email if you'd like to pursue this line of argument. i will not be transferring the crate to an inactive group of people. this is my final ask that you please stop using this issue to pursue this topic. if you continue i will take further action to restrict your interaction on this repo.

ashleygwilliams commented 4 years ago

hey folks! if you've replied here, please also email me at ashley666ashley@gmail.com to make sure i can send you a response! thanks again for reaching out and wanting to help wasm-pack. GitHub issues are not well designed to have threaded conversations, so it'll be easier for me to talk to each of you personally via email.

dakom commented 4 years ago

I don't think this discussion should be happening in a private email. It should be out in the open. Threating to shut up anyone who points out the mistake you're making here (namely wishing to retain sole ownership of the publish rights, when the crate is and should be owned by the team), and then trying to deflect that to a private discussion that nobody can see, is an abusive tactic.

My points are absolutely relevant for "long term maintenance strategy for wasm-pack". If anything, it's not so relevant for short term maintenance strategy for wasm-pack. But long term? It's all about getting the team stable, which means giving them publish rights to a tool people are relying on. A tool that happens to be otherwise owned by that team (for good reason).

It's true, there was an issue that was more directly to the exact point I'm making, but you erroneously shut that down for getting "too heated" (https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914) (side-point, where was the heat? Did someone say something inflammatory? I didn't catch that... it seems that it's just that it bothered you, and so you felt heat that wasn't there 🙄 )

It's also true, that the team isn't capable of doing much right now, but it's still a correct step (to add them as a co-owner, not sole transfer) and your refusal to do it makes no sense at all.

Go ahead - follow through on your promise and ban me, for doing nothing other than pushing a salient point you, and as far as I can tell - you alone, disagree with. At least there will be a record of your moderator abuse.

I won't be able to follow through for a day or so by the way. So if there is further sensible discussion, please don't take my delayed response as anything other than that.

kettle11 commented 3 years ago

@ashleygwilliams's point makes sense that it's unwise to transfer ownership to a defunct group just because the name sounds official.

But that raises a few questions:

@fitzgen is listed here as the sole member of the Rust WebAssembly working group and the team leader. Is @fitzgen still the leader of the working group? If so he should weigh in as well.

ashleygwilliams commented 3 years ago

@kettle11 historically there has been a core team of the rustwasm working group, that consisted of me, @alexcrichton, @fitzgen, and for a time, @Pauan. do we think we could move this question to a new issue on the team repo https://github.com/rustwasm/team? it's probably a better place for this conversation :)

i would like to move the search for wasm-pack maintainers forward and not block on reviving the working group. this is because i think re-establishing the working group will take a lot longer and will involve more things than setting up a new maintainership for this single project (both will be significant and different effort). that being said, i am eager to see the group revived and super support all efforts to do so!

kettle11 commented 3 years ago

i would like to move the search for wasm-pack maintainers forward and not block on reviving the working group. this is because i think re-establishing the working group will take a lot longer and will involve more things than setting up a new maintainership for this single project

That sounds like a good assessment and a pragmatic approach.

Just to summarize key points from what you've said:

From my perspective that all makes sense.

And thanks for creating wasm-pack and many of the Rust+Wasm resources! It's a (perhaps not ideal) testament to the value of your work that people are so passionate with their opinions about wasm-pack's future.

Hopefully members of the community who are invested in Rust + Wasm will step up and help!

pauldorehill commented 3 years ago

At its core this is an issue of a personal crate existing under the guise of a working group crate. The cleanest solution would be to transfer the crate back to @ashleygwilliams and out of the rustwasm organization:

ashleygwilliams commented 3 years ago

@kettle11 yup! that's a great summary.

@pauldorehill i don't think that's a great idea. the reason i don't think that is a great idea is because rustwasm, while a defunct group of people, is still a coherent and coupled set of software and resources. there are several templates, books, examples, and docs, in this repo that are coupled with wasm-pack. many of those also need some love and depend on wasm-pack to work and be effective.

i've been considering if creating a new wasm-pack org is the right call. or simply focusing on getting maintainership of wasm-pack as step 1 in the process of reviving the rustwasm working group. personally i would much prefer to see this as step one of getting the working group back to a normal spot. i'm not sure it's useful or necessary to transfer several repositories out of this org in an effort to eventually transfer them back in. if my other rustwasm colleagues feel differently i'm happy to reconsider, but for the moment i don't see any value of moving it.

While the rustwasm group is in its current state of semi stasis it doesn't have the implied responsibility for maintaining it

and just to address this point for what i hope is the last time:

there is no rustwasm group of people. any repos/crates existing in a rustwasm org implies a set of rustwasm people. moving wasm-pack doesn't change this sense of implied maintenance. nearly every repo in this org has that implication and is not being maintained, from the rustwasm book, to the team repo, to gloo and twiggy. i understand that no one seems upset about those resources at the moment, but they are in the same state. as we think about solutions, i think we should be considering that this is not wasm-pack "leaving a working group" but that we are in a place of rebuilding the working group, at first, just for wasm-pack.

frehberg commented 3 years ago

In terms of code, what needs to be done? Is there any roadmap? Any TODOs?

ashleygwilliams commented 3 years ago

@frehberg i'm hoping to come up with a brief roadmap/todos in #929 - and then once a group of maintainers is brought together and is done getting out the next release we can set up a more formal plan of action. if you have any suggestions please feel free to comment on the aforementioned issue!

i'm running a bit behind because of a personal issue but i am hoping to have a kick off meeting with folks next week (sending emails out tomorrow, apologies for the delay).

drager commented 3 years ago

I think it would be a good idea to keep this repository and others (such as https://github.com/rustwasm/binary-install) in an organization, just like we have today. The problem is though that the group of people who consist of this rustwasm group is somewhat inactive right now and have been for a couple of months before. I think it would be good to do some planning and set a roadmap and which people should be involved in this as you're saying @ashleygwilliams.

beyera commented 3 years ago

@drager & @ashleygwilliams: I'll add yet another call for please adding someone else to help maintain this project. I'd be happy to donate some time, but there's plenty of small meaningful MRs going undressed.

drager commented 3 years ago

@drager & @ashleygwilliams: I'll add yet another call for please adding someone else to help maintain this project. I'd be happy to donate some time, but there's plenty of small meaningful MRs going undressed.

I'm planning on releasing a 0.9.2 with just the binary-install fix and then go through the latest issues/PRs and publish a 0.10.2 as soon as I'm done with that. In the meantime, feel free to review PRs and let me know what you expect from wasm-pack further down the road. Thanks 😊

somethingelseentirely commented 3 years ago

So happy to see some activity! ❤️ Can't wait to pass that --weak-refs flag to bindgen some day 😅 ✨

tv42 commented 3 years ago

This issue seems to one of the two new issues mentioned in https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914 without linking. Since #914 is now locked, mention it here so hopefully it'll cross-reference right.

ms-ati commented 2 years ago

Checking in from the future (Mon, Dec 20 2021) -- what is the current state of finding new maintainers for wasm-pack?

stephanemagnenat commented 1 year ago

Could the foundation help with this? Maybe by having a tiny part of the infrastructure funding supporting the maintenance of this crate?

ms-ati commented 1 year ago

Checking in again from the farther future (Fri, Jan 13 2023) -- what is the current state of finding new maintainers for wasm-pack?