On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I do like the idea of multiple people "owning" an area to avoid > politicking.
Yes, multi-owners if possible is the way to go. A +1 by a multi-owner or two +1s by non-multi-owners before a patch goes into a particular component. > For lookup purposes, instead of putting names under a > component lead, we could just use the description field to list folk's name. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/component/12312140 (what you > get when you click on the rest component link) > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/component/12315702 (what you > get when you click on the hbck component link) > Good one Jon. I actually want to go ahead and do this now and move over the ownerships we already have and add the ones that you and Lars just volunteered for. > To initially dole out components, we could do it the benevolent dictator > way (stack's velvet glove initially assigns folks), and then folks in the > component can add others. Smile. Or better would be folks volunteering (as fellas are doing here already). I can take care of updating JIRA. > I think one that that is > important some sort of design info up so that we know how things are > supposed to work. > I agree. If it were in place, it'd make it easier rejecting patches that take us away from the stated goal. It'd also serve as a target for patches to drive toward. Who'd do the design or component tenets list? Component owner's ideally, when they get a moment. St.Ack
