On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I like the idea of lieutenants, but another option would be a > "multi-lieutenant" model. > > The model used at google is that each directory has a file called > "OWNERS" which lists several usernames, one per line. > > For any given patch, you are expected to get a review such that, for > each modified file, one of the OWNERS listed in that directory (or any > parent thereof) has +1ed. > > So, for example, imagine that hbase/OWNERS has only Stack, and > hbase/foo/component1/OWNERS has "jxiang,larsh". If I make a patch > which touches something in foo/component1/bar/, I'd need a review from > at least one of Jimmy, Lars, or Stack. > > The assumption is that you try to get review from the most specific > owner, but if those people are MIA, you get review from someone higher > up the stack. The multi-person-per-dir model also ensures that, if > someone's on vacation or otherwise busy, we don't get blocked. And it > formalizes in the actual source tree who you should probably email if > you have questions about an area. > > It also means that wide-ranging patches that touch multiple components > need a lot of reviewers (or someone higher up the chain of command who > has "permission" on the whole tree). So if I had a mondo patch that > touched the region server, the master, and the IPC layer, I'd probably > need at least three separate people to sign off. >
Seems like a nice model to me. I can't use JIRA to implement the hierarchy. This page, https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/HBASE/components, only lets me have one person per component and it does not let me specify a supra-layer above components to which I could add a captains' layer. We could do the hierarchy in a wiki page if folks like Todds suggestion above. > Whatever we do, rather than making it a strict policy, let's start out > with a soft touch. Perhaps declare the component maintainers and try > to pick reviewers based on the criteria. But if people are busy and > work needs to get done, we don't need to be anal about it :) > Agreed. St.Ack
