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

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka, mail # dev - Maintainer system?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Maintainer system?
Jay Kreps 2012-11-19, 19:30
Agreed. It is clearly a balancing act. Let us know if you think we are off
the reservation.

The two practical problems I want to solve:
1. We are too slow at reviewing patches, this makes it so that each patch
has at least one other person who knows they need to look at it asap.
2. Cross cutting changes seem to lead to hacks in some areas. For example
the producer code definitely got nastier during the replication work. I
feel the cause is that when working on a feature you sometimes need to work
on code you don't know that well, and consequently you don't really know
the right thing to do. I am certainly guilty of this. Having someone who is
specifically responsible for that will lead to greater incentive to catch
this in review and increase the change that the right person will be doing
the review.

-Jay
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Jakob Homan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One thing to keep in mind is that Apache dissuades against the @author
> tag to try and ensure the whole community, particularly the
> committers, feels ownership of the whole codebase.  While committers
> not familiar with a particular bit of code shouldn't necessarily
> review a piece of code, neither should any one subset of the committer
> community be the only ones able to move a section of the codebase
> forward.
>
> Basically, we should just make sure that this system is not used to
> fence people in or restrict proven contributors' ability to work in
> one section or another.
>
> On 19 November 2012 11:08, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Okay so there seems to be a consensus that this is a good idea. I have
> > added a wiki page with maintainers:
> >   https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Maintainers
> > Could committers do the following:
> > 1. Add themselves to areas they would like to act as a maintainer for?
> Our
> > goal will be two have two maintainers for each area, but if we have
> either
> > one or three that is fine too. Sign up for areas where you think you have
> > expertise or can make a difference.
> > 2. Add other areas I left out. I think it is fine if they are small. For
> > example I think it would be fine to have a single maintainer for
> > Utils.scala even though that is not a major area.
> >
> > -Jay
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Jun is just far and away the best reviewer. So maybe we should just
> >> require that everybody get Jun to review their patches. :-)
> >>
> >> Or, more practically, maybe Jun should put together some guidelines on
> >> what he does and we can try to emulate.
> >>
> >> -Jay
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Prashanth Menon <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 from me on the maintainer system and having a primary/secondary for
> >>> components.
> >>>
> >>> I also think we should try as much as possible to get at least two
> >>> reviewers for patches that come in.  This is something I'm very guilty
> of
> >>> and am trying to correct.  I get the feeling Jun is overwhelmed with
> patch
> >>> reviews :)
> >>>
> >>> - Prashanth
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > +1 on this, I like the idea of having a primary/secondary owner
> system
> >>> > for each component.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Neha
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > > I think that's a good idea. It will be good to have at least 2
> >>> > maintainers
> >>> > > per component.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I'd encourage more people to review patches. The more patches one
> >>> > reviews,
> >>> > > the more familiar he/she is with the components.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thanks,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Jun
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Hey guys,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> The number of developers and code base size for Kafka is getting