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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components
Chris Douglas 2013-09-04, 19:39
Larry, et al.-

> So, I guess the questions that immediately come to mind are:
> 1. Is there a document that describes the best way to do this?

I'm not aware of anything that speaks to this directly.

> 2. How best do we leverage code being done in one feature branch within
> another?

More than being easily reviewable, branches should be coherent. If two
features need to develop together, then they should be on the same
branch. It's just a mechanism to decouple progress on a feature from
development on trunk; the people invested in the minutiae of the
feature can reach consensus, commit a change, and keep going. It's
isolation effecting specialized evolution, where every intermediate
form need not be viable. Where that's appropriate, it can be a useful
tool, but it's also much heavier than attaching patches to JIRA.
Please don't feel obliged to use it where it doesn't make sense.

One aside: if you come across a bug, please try to fix it upstream and
then merge into the feature branch rather than cherry-picking patches
or only fixing it on the branch. It becomes very awkward to track. -C

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Larry McCay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris -
>
> I am curious whether there are any guidelines for feature branch use.
>
> The general goals should be to:
> * keep branches as small and as easily reviewable as possible for a given
> feature
> * decouple the pluggable framework from any specific central server
> implementation
> * scope specific content into iterations that can be merged into trunk on
> their own and then development continued in new branches for the next
> iteration
>
> So, I guess the questions that immediately come to mind are:
> 1. Is there a document that describes the best way to do this?
> 2. How best do we leverage code being done in one feature branch within
> another?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --larry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Zheng, Kai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This looks good and reasonable to me. Thanks Chris.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:45 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Larry McCay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > One outstanding question for me - how do we go about getting the
>> > branches created?
>>
>> Once a group has converged on a purpose- ideally with some initial code
>> from JIRA- please go ahead and create the feature branch in svn.
>> There's no ceremony. -C
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Chris Nauroth
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Near the bottom of the bylaws, it states that addition of a "New
>> >> Branch Committer" requires "Lazy consensus of active PMC members."  I
>> >> think this means that you'll need to get a PMC member to sponsor the
>> >> vote for you.
>> >>  Regular committer votes happen on the private PMC mailing list, and
>> >> I assume it would be the same for a branch committer vote.
>> >>
>> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>> >>
>> >> Chris Nauroth
>> >> Hortonworks
>> >> http://hortonworks.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Larry McCay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > That sounds perfect!
>> >> > I have been thinking of late that we would maybe need an incubator
>> >> project
>> >> > or something for this - which would be unfortunate.
>> >> >
>> >> > This would allow us to move much more quickly with a set of patches
>> >> broken
>> >> > up into consumable/understandable chunks that are made functional
>> >> > more easily within the branch.
>> >> > I assume that we need to start a separate thread for DISCUSS or
>> >> > VOTE to start that process - correct?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Aug 6, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > yep, that is what I meant. Thanks Chris
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Chris Nauroth <