Hi, Evans is adressing my concerns very well.
Olaf > Am 15.09.2015 um 14:43 schrieb Evans Ye <[email protected]>: > > 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) >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
