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
+
John Vines 2012-10-31, 17:49
+
Benson Margulies 2012-10-31, 17:49
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Q: re Accumulo Commit Policy? (was Re: Setting charset in getBytes())
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> CTR communities deal with this all the time. In a CTR community,
> people who make changes are prepared to unmake, remake, or otherwise
> adjust changes as needed to achieve consensus. RTC communities do it
> the other way around. For the sake of collective sanity, I'd encourage
> this group to clarify that it is one or the other, and not try to
> achieve too much of a hybrid.

Good point.  We are currently a CTR community.  I am not advocating
for changing that in any way.  I just wanted to point out that review
board is a great tool to use on a voluntary basis.

Since we have chosen CTR, we should just go with it.  Review the
commits and changes them as needed as consensus develops.   No need to
spend too much time worrying about whether or not a commit should have
been made.  I agree with you point about a hybrid, it does seem like
it could get really confusing.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
+
Keith Turner 2012-10-31, 17:03