There're some points made by Olaf and I think they're valuable. But I think we can get the benefit of reviewing process by applying some policy to our CTR.
For example, one is forced to drop a patch on JIRA and wait for a certain while before commit. Someone interested in it may take a look at patch and left a comment. Comments need to be addressed as well as consensus should be reached then a patch can be committed. The benefit of CTR to me is that some minor improvement or bugfix that do not have design issue can be fixed earlier and then things can move forward. I see sometimes patch get stalled and no one is looking into it, which is sort of depressing to either committer or contributor who creates it. But I do know everyone is busy and we might just being lack of resources. If we adopt CTR and committers' load can be alleviated. We can spend time on things that need to be discussed more. We can spend time helping more contributors on board. Getting back to CI, maybe this is a good chance to improve it based on what we really need in the field by adopting CTR. What I mean is what I proposed earlier might looks like the best case for our CI, but maybe there're something we don't really need that much. So, if we have our CI at least cover all the major functionality, then we should be good to go. Evans 2015年9月15日 上午6:07於 "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]>寫道： > Yes, please! :-) > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Musselman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > If you guys are looking for some help with > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1249 I will ask around at > > work > > to see who might have the interest and bandwidth. > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
