Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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
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 <
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB