Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)


Copy link to this message
-
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Nick Dimiduk 2013-12-19, 21:59
Perhaps it's worth while refreshing the owners concept? I think it's a
reasonable way to manage the problem, but requires participants willing to
make the commitment. I find it funny that there's so few owners, 0-1 owner
per component in general. With as many active committers as we have, I
would think we could manage a solid showing of 2+ owners each. With as many
of us as there are who are making a living on the project, I think this
should be possible.

Then again, maybe my perception of active committers is skewed? For
instance, I am guilty of some level of delinquency regarding my
responsibilities to the mapreduce component as of late.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> > unable to hear clearly.
>
>
>
> Looks like it.  There was some small back and forth on this topic mentioned
> in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda.
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> >
>
> You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up
> what I thought our understanding.  This 'policy' goes back a ways.  It came
> up out of this discussion [2].
>
> More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt at
> getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting
> crap commits.
>
>
>
> > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see.
>
>
>
> Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on
> REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale.
>
>
>
> > Owners are not around
> > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > society. We can't gate on an owner +1.
>
>
> The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
> random committers == an owner's +1.
>
>
> > I am not in favor of requiring more
> > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> and
> > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> > CTR for trivial changes.
> >
> >
> > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine.  The policy is for
> substantive
> patches.  If that is not clear, I can add wording so.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> 1.
>
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html
> 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > >
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > >
> > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> give
> > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> progress
> > > beyond discussion.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters  +1 per JIRA?
> > > > >>  Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote