On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Avinash Lakshman <avinash.laksh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> <snipped> > (2) This is something that I have said many times over. Certain things are > the way they are for a reason. For example when I say ConcurrentHashMap is > a > memory hog I say it because we have seen this in practice. How does it > manifest itself? I obviously do not recall since all this was over a year > ago. No one can claim to have run tests the way we have in the last year > and > a half. One cannot just run some simple test and say well I do not see the > problem. I am not dumb. Anyone having gone through the exercise of having > built a system like this in an organization will realize that the tests are > very intermingled with the organization's infrastructure. I have no time to > rip that all apart and put together a test suite at this point. This is > just > an example. There are many such instances - after all - we are the ones who > have the operational experience with this and I do not think anyone can > claim to understand the behavior this system in production workloads better > than we do. > Look, what you're saying here is basically "we know better and you're stupid, so don't touch our code and don't ask questions, we can't provide answers anyway". I'm hoping that's not the way you meant it (emails do that) but that's the essence of what came across. You just can't run an open source project by saying this on its development list. Matthieu > > My understanding was that new committers come in and start with some > feature > implement that and then slowly start looking into what more they could do > going forward. It is NOT come in and refactor the hell out of the system > because you like something to be in a specific way. I do not beleive this > will fly in any community. It is something like we now going through the > entire code base and changing all the stuff just because I like it in a > specific way. This seems ludicrous. We may have no experience in open > source > but we understand etiquette very well. This just doesn't seem the way > things > work in other Apache projects which are successful. We work very closely > with two committers from the Hadoop project who were flabbergasted with the > refactor changes that were going in. That is my gripe with the whole thing. > > Cheers > Avinash > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > So the problems I am seeing are: > > > > > > 1. We elected a committer without real community consensus. The > > > barrier of entry was unnatural low on this one. On the other hand we > > > need non-FB committers for the graduation. The more the better. (No > > > reason for low entry barrier though!) > > > > It's unfortunate that Avinash and Prashant weren't part of the > > process. Still, when I talked to Avinash on March 1, he told me [and > > this is a direct quote] "If I had known you earlier I would have added > > you as a committer." So when I asked one of the mentors how to become > > a committer and it worked out from there it did not occur to me that > > anything was wrong. > > > > > > > > 2. A missing definition of development process: > > > - What is considered a valid code review? > > > - How much are changes discussed up-front? > > > > I think we have a handle on this now. All changes are put on Jira for > > review and are not committed until there is at least one +1 from a > > reviewer. (I personally prefer post-commit review because manually > > attaching and applying patches is tedious but we don't have enough > > people following the commit log for that to work right now.) > > > > > - What is the roadmap? ...for whom? (weighted as a community) > > > > That's worth a separate thread. Such as this one. :) > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00160.html > > > > > 3. Is trunk considered "stable"? Or aren't we missing a stable branch > > > for the required stability? Once we have the separation between stable > > > and trunk: Will patches really find it's way from trunk into stable? > > > Is Facebook OK with that approach. Will everyone cope with the > > > additional work of merging? Would it be useful ...or overkill to use > > > merge tracking? > > > > I'm happy to assist with merging code to or from stable branches in > > this scenario. > > > > > This is a tough situation but I hope everyone sees this as an > > > opportunity. Please let's discuss this openly in civilize manner. > > > Focusing on how to solve these points rather than looking at the past. > > > Please talk to each other. Can you/we work this out together? > > > > This can still be a win/win for everyone. I think that historically > > facebook has felt like the community hasn't contributed much of value, > > but we're starting to change that. The build and test process is > > dramatically better than it was before thanks to community > > contributions. We have a real daemon mode. (Well, not in the purest > > sense, but it runs in the background nicely w/o nohup or screen. :) > > We've also found and fixed several concurrency bugs, and we're well on > > the way to having remove and range queries implemented. > > > > Our IRC population has more than doubled. (#cassandra on freenode: > > > > > http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23cassandra&nick=mibbit > > for a web client) We have a chance to make this more than a niche > > project. > > > > -Jonathan > > >
