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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Q: re Accumulo Commit Policy? (was Re: Setting charset in getBytes())


+
Drew Farris 2012-10-31, 16:09
+
Adam Fuchs 2012-10-31, 16:18
+
Josh Elser 2012-10-31, 16:30
+
David Medinets 2012-10-31, 16:44
+
John Vines 2012-10-31, 17:01
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 17:38
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Q: re Accumulo Commit Policy? (was Re: Setting charset in getBytes())
Adam Fuchs 2012-10-31, 17:48
+1

See reviews.apache.org.

Cheers,
Adam
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not wanting to merge is a terrible reason to commit a patch. A patch file
> > would have been more then sufficient until we reached a consensus on
>
> A slight deviation.  I have used review board for potentially
> disruptive changes.  When I used it, I got excellent feedback from the
> community that greatly improved my patches.   A nice tool to be aware
> of if you have a patch that you are uneasy about.
>
> > implementation. The worst case is that the patch had to be merged
> properly,
> > which someone would have had to do. We are a community, and if one person
> > does not have the resources to merge a patch due to code changes there
> are
> > plenty of others here who are willing to do it.
> >
> > That said, patch files should be the way to go for any sort of contested
> > implementation. It gives the community a chance to see that
> implementation
> > firsthand without there being dedication to it. I do not think code
> should
> > ever be committed if there is still reasonable discourse about the
> > implementation being had. For the record, I also feel that time shouldn't
> > be spent on implementation which is under review, simply because it could
> > be a waste of time, with exception for cases where code samples will help
> > the discussion.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:44 PM, David Medinets
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I think the core policy should be if you think your change is at all
> >> likely
> >> > to be rolled back then don't commit it. This applies to tickets with
> >> active
> >> > debates. I also don't think we need to be heavy handed in policy --
> shame
> >> > of roll back is enough motivation and the cost isn't that high.
> >>
> >> This particular change required a fair bit of analysis (i.e., looking
> >> at over a thousand method calls). I could only devote that time due to
> >> Hurricane Sandy barreling down on me. If I had held off on my commit
> >> and the source code changed, I would have some merging to do. And
> >> maybe no time to do that. So my time and analysis would have been
> >> wasted. With the commit, the analysis has been made concrete and the
> >> community can more forward. In fact,
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-840 was created to do
> >> just that.
> >>
> >> >> Drew said:
> >> >> I haven't been closely following how things have worked with
> Accumulo,
> >> but
> >> >> I did notice that the getBytes() stuff had been checked in. Just
> >> wondering
> >> >> if this is the norm, or how things should work.
> >>
> >> In normal situations (i.e., in the past) I recall waiting for a
> >> consensus to develop.
> >>
>
+
John Vines 2012-10-31, 17:49
+
Benson Margulies 2012-10-31, 17:49
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 18:17
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 17:03