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
+
Adam Fuchs 2012-10-31, 17:48
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Q: re Accumulo Commit Policy? (was Re: Setting charset in getBytes())
Agreed, I would like to see review board used more for any sort of
conflicting changes. I completely forgot about it when i wrote up about
patches.

John

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +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.
> > >>
> >
>
+
Benson Margulies 2012-10-31, 17:49
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 18:17
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 17:03