[10:00] <weaverryan> Ok! Welcome
[10:00] <weaverryan> The format today will be 3 topics: 20 minutes each
[10:00] <fabpot> Hi everyone!
[10:00] <jakubzalas1> hi
[10:00] <nicolasgrekas> Hello!
[10:00] <ewgra> hi
[10:00] <weaverryan> o/
[10:00] <xabbuh> hi
[10:00] <weaverryan> The topics are:
[10:00] <weaverryan> A) core team organization (Fabien)
[10:00] <weaverryan> B) issue tagging / organization / issue/PR triaging (Jakub and Nicolas)
[10:00] <weaverryan> C) PSR-7 implementation plan (everyone)
[10:01] <weaverryan> If we finish something early, we can move on to the next topic early.
[10:01] <weaverryan> Try to keep too much noise down and stay focused on the topic - we're short on time! If someone is getting off-topic, as moderator, I may remind them to keep things on topic.
[10:02] <Tobion> hey everybody
[10:02] <weaverryan> I see most people I expected (except maybe Stof?)
[10:02] <dunglas> Hi
[10:02] --> bestform ([email protected]) has joined this channel.
[10:03] --> umulmrum ([email protected]) has joined this channel.
[10:03] --> Stof ([email protected]) has joined this channel.
[10:03] <Stof> hi
[10:03] <umulmrum> hi
[10:03] <bestform> o/
[10:03] <weaverryan> I was just looking for you Stof ;)
[10:04] <weaverryan> First topic: core team organization - fabpot - can you start?
[10:04] <fabpot> sure
[10:04] <fabpot> So, we re-introduced the notion of a core team some time ago now
[10:04] <fabpot> the main goal was to scale Symfony
[10:05] <fabpot> before the core team, I was the only one to be able to merge PRs (and I was the only one to have right access anyway on the repo)
[10:05] <fabpot> and we have ~10 members today
[10:05] <-- jakubzalas (uid88514@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rkyvxvpvwutaufcs) has left this channel.
[10:05] *** jakubzalas1 is now known as jakubzalas.
[10:05] <-- Pindabeer ([email protected]) has left this server (Ping timeout: 250 seconds).
[10:05] <Stof> 13 members to be exact
[10:05] <fabpot> The main idea is to give more "power" to the community (or at least to people who spend a lot of time on Symfony)
[10:06] <fabpot> First, I want to know if the core team works well enough or if we can improve the way we are working
[10:07] <fabpot> I have some ideas to improve our current way, but I will first let you give feedback
[10:07] <fabpot> you == the current core team and anyone participating today :)
[10:07] <dunglas> Maybe are we lacking of a public plan of what we want to implement (some kind of todo list) ?
[10:08] <Iltar> I think it works well. It would be nice to be able to quickly glance quickly and see the ones working on that specific part, like you /cc'd my BC break a few days ago.
[10:08] <weaverryan> dunglas: agreed - but that may be solved by these meetings where we can decide big direction
[10:09] <nicolasgrekas> we are maybe too few to effectively merge PRs
[10:09] --> baptiste_ (58aec926@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.174.201.38) has joined this channel.
[10:09] <jakubzalas> I lack visibility to the process and what's going to happen with specific issues (is it going to be considered for the next release? is it going to be accepted at all? etc)
[10:09] <fabpot> truth is we don't need big plans, but mainly what to do next (4 months vs 2 years)
[10:09] <nicolasgrekas> when fab is away, the number of PR growth
[10:09] <jakubzalas> agreed
[10:09] <weaverryan> reminder: the PR/issue triaging topic is next ;)
[10:09] <fabpot> jakubzalas: we are working on a timed release, so whatever can be merged in the 4 months of dev for a release is in
[10:09] <weaverryan> I think components that have non-fabpot mergers/maintainers are healthier because there is one person responsible for just a small part - like if there is a translation issue, there is one person quite responsible (aitboudad)
[10:10] <fabpot> weaverryan: agreed
[10:10] <WouterJ> as a concept, I think the core team works well. But I think it kind of overgrow the GitHub issue tracker, resulting in what jakub is saying: There is not a lot of overview for people if they open an issue or PR
[10:10] <Iltar> Yup, that works very nicely
[10:10] <fabpot> ideally, we should have one non-fabpot commiter for all components
[10:10] <xabbuh> maybe we can find other mergers besides fabpot for some components
[10:10] <Tobion> I think it works quite well. One thing that bothered me was the limited merging rights to certain components. It's somewhat unrealistic because often PRs cover several componts/bundles/briges.
[10:10] <weaverryan> fabpot +1
[10:11] <nicolasgrekas> agree with tobion also: I already merged (trivial) PRs on other components than mine
[10:11] <fabpot> xabbuh: I'm all for it but who?
[10:11] <nicolasgrekas> I need the law to chance so I'm not outlawed anymore :)
[10:12] <nicolasgrekas> s/chance/change/
[10:12] <fabpot> nicolasgrekas: that's something I want to change in the current official rules -> let everyone in the core team to merge trivial PRs or PRs with 2 +1s
[10:12] <WouterJ> I also think there should be some "rules" for issues
[10:12] <xabbuh> fabpot: not sure, which components don't have a dedicated merger right now?
[10:12] <Stof> Tobion: changes in bridges/bundles are generally related to a given component anyway. In this case, the component merger is the right one to merge too
[10:13] <weaverryan> +1 and if there is overlap, ping the maintainer from the other component
[10:13] <Stof> weaverryan: yeah
[10:13] <fabpot> and anyway, we need 2 +1s, if you have them, just merge
[10:14] <fabpot> xabbuh: most of the components don't have a dedicated merger. I would say Routing, Translation, Serializer, Process, DomCrawler are taken care of pretty well (I might have missed one or two)
[10:14] --> lsmith (sid5594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iwssvxynxbxbvneo) has joined this channel.
[10:15] <weaverryan> if we don't have people who can be a "merger" for a component, then set the goal lower: find someone who can be a "maintainer" (or something) - no merge rights (yet), but someone who commits to being accountable for issues/PR's - still not easy, but easier to find
[10:15] <lsmith> sorry. thought it was 17:30
[10:15] <weaverryan> no worries lsmith - but I was missing you :)
[10:15] <fabpot> weaverryan: I think we cannot "find" people. They should already be contributing
[10:16] <-- NoTriX ([email protected]) has left this server (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
[10:16] <fabpot> for instance, Iltar is someone who contribute often and regularly, so he is definitely a good "candidate"
[10:16] <fabpot> contributing == code but also core review, comments, ...
[10:16] <Stof> Components officially without a merger (in 2.8): Asset, ClassLoader, CssSelector, ExpressionLanguage, Filesystem, Finder, Security, Templating, Yaml
[10:16] <weaverryan> (5 minute warning on this topic)
[10:18] <weaverryan> So, do we like the idea of experimenting with this new role of maintainer (cooler word)? With a goal that all components have at least one non-fabpot merger / maintainer?
[10:18] <Tobion> How about just saying that every Core member is allowed to merge. And rename the role merger to maintainer.
[10:19] <dunglas> +1 for Iltar
[10:19] <Tobion> thus maintainers have 2 votes (just as mergers now)
[10:19] <fabpot> Tobion: agreed, if something has at least 2 +1s, any core team member can merge
[10:19] <Stof> But I recognize that I'm much less active than 1 year ago (I'm not as regular at looking at issues/PR), so it does not help (given that I was not limiting myself to components where I'm merger)
[10:20] <Stof> Tobion: if everyone gets 2 votes, it does not make sense to have a x2
[10:20] <fabpot> weaverryan: looks lke a good idea but finding the right people is the hard thing
[10:20] <WouterJ> doesn't it make more sense to be limited on the voting process instead of the merging process?
[10:20] <WouterJ> as, unless I'm missing something, merging doesn
[10:20] <fabpot> the more people with the +1 power, the better
[10:20] <Tobion> no normal members have +1 and maintainers have +2 for their stuff
[10:20] <fabpot> merging is the easy part
[10:21] <aitboudad> can we reserve one day every week for voting, this can improve and simplify the workflow ?
[10:21] <Stof> and in practice, I'm not sure we use this rule much. Most of the time, we are still getting 2 real +1s anyway
[10:21] <weaverryan> workflow is next :)
[10:21] <Stof> which is a good thing IMO as it means we got 2 different minds on the subject
[10:21] <fabpot> weaverryan: I will propose some changes in the rules taking into account the discussion
[10:21] <-- DanielBadura ([email protected]) has left this channel.
[10:22] <weaverryan> fabpot: Perfect. Then should we move on? We can always visit future changes at a future meeting.
[10:22] <fabpot> sure, let's move on