On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:00AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Just to be clear I didn't simply describe what the HBase community is doing > in this regard but also submitted those ideas for consideration here. I > could make the same dismissive statement about your pointer to the Ignite > lists.
Andrew, it wasn't dismissive and wasn't really triggered by your reply. Now reading the first sentence of my reply below I can see why it could be considered dismissive. But may be I deserved a bit of benefit of a doubt? Any way, I actually didn't see much value in copy-pasting all the threads from that list, which is already publicly available. You made the same referral to the dev@hbase, except that I have actually provided the links ;) > > On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What Andrew describes is a good step forward CTR process and I am sure HBase > > community will find a process that works for them the best. I still think > > CTR > > and yet another step further. I believe if a person has commit-bit it is, > > essentially, means that his judgement is trusted and he knows what's good to > > the project and won't hurt the code intentionally. Mistakes will be > > happening > > under either of the processes. But the trust in your community fellows goes > > long way, I think. > > > > We had this discussion on Ignite dev@ list just about a month ago [1]. And > > all > > sorts of arguments were expressed there, and I'd encourage everyone to spend > > a little bit of time reviewing it. The great points were made by Brane [2], > > [3], and [4]. They aren't that long and esp. [3] is very deep, in my option. > > > > Considering that I really agree with what Brane and myself (doug ;) have > > said > > on that thread I won't repeat myself here, but just ask to look at the last > > three emails from below. > > > > BTW, Ignite is on the CTR process for about a month now - nothing morbid had > > happened to it. And the rate of the development in this project is pretty > > high, actually. > > > > Thanks, > > Cos > > > > [1] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1822.html > > > > [2] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1850.html > > [3] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1885.html > > [4] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1859.html > > > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 08:51AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> I made this argument over on the dev@hbase list: If the community considers > >> quality a priority (and we do, right? (Smile)) then we should have a strong > >> code review ethic whether technically bound to have one (RTC) or not > >> (CTR). > >> > >> I started a discussion to move over to CTR on HBase because some components > >> or niche concerns don't draw prompt reviews, slowing down the > >> contributor/committer because their next steps depend on the current patch. > >> We had this discussion on our dev@ list. You can find it in the public > >> archives if curious. However I was mostly convinced we have sufficient > >> tools > >> without CTR so that's not necessary, eg: - Any committer can check anything > >> into a dev branch (non release branch) without review; review comes later > >> at > >> the branch merge vote. Haven't checked if we have a branch merge policy. We > >> can always add one. > >> - Small fixes or test only changes are given leeway to the committer's > >> discretion. Try to wait long enough if a volunteer wants to show up and do > >> a > >> review. - We have an informal consensus practice where as long as the > >> change doesn't have major impact (again, committer discretion) then after > >> an > >> issue sits a day or two one might post "going to commit this later today > >> unless objection" - and, if no objection, this is a "lazy review" and > >> commit. > >> > >> For your consideration. > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 7:33 AM, RJ Nowling <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't want to derail this decision if CTR has general approval. I would > >>> be happy with a clear checklist document that we can all agree to follow > >>> before commits. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:24 AM, jay vyas <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> i think we moved this discussion here > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1249 > >>>> > >>>> The goal is definetely to get automated reviews. > >>>> > >>>> we hacked around successfully with some prototypes but never > >>>> productionized > >>>> them. > >>>>
