I can volunteer for Assignments( though the trunk code I need some more hands on), Split regions, HLog replay.
Regards Ram > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Yu [mailto:yuzhih...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:36 AM > To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants? > > I volunteer for snapshots and WAL components. > > Thanks > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > Maybe just make it an informal list of (self declared :) ) > "specialists". > > For example if I see changes in the Assignment code that I do not > > understand I usually defer to Ram. If there's some HFile stuff, I > defer to > > Mikhail... > > > > If we had a list of specialists, it would be easier to defer to them, > or > > to pull them into a review. I think that would be better than strict > > guidelines. > > > > > > I'd volunteer for: Transactions/MVCC, Scanners/Scanning/QueryMatcher, > > Client, Deletion, Performance. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars hofhansl < > > lhofha...@yahoo.com> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:08 PM > > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants? > > > > Why doesn't every committer or contributor with interest volunteer? > Some > > overlap there would be good. Beyond that we can list the remaining > areas > > without good coverage and nominate for them? > > > > I volunteer for Coprocessors, REST, security, filters, and client. > > > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM, lars hofhansl > <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > >> I like that idea. > > >> > > >> Should all PMC members or committers be at top level of the source > > tree? Or will that just take us back to the status-quo? > > >> > > > > > > I feel like that would take us back to the status quo. > > > > > > The downside of this proposal is that we should probably have some > > > well-principled way of determining who gets "ownership" (whether > > > co-ownership or alone) of each part of the heirarchy. I fear it > could > > > become political or discourage people from contributing or > reviewing > > > code outside their area of expertise. So, if people have good ideas > on > > > how to go about doing this, please shout them out! > > > > > >> > > >> I certainly like that a typical patch then will involve multiple > > reviewer, and it will be more defined who should look at what patch. > > >> > > >> -- Lars > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > > >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > >> Cc: > > >> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:15 PM > > >> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants? > > >> > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> 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 :) > > >> > > >> -Todd > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >>> At the contributor's pow wow a few days ago [1], during a > discussion > > >>> about whether or not commits should have more friction applied -- > i.e. > > >>> have more review before they go in -- it was thought that we > might > > >>> benefit if we had "lieutenants" over-seeing individual HBase > > >>> components. A lieutenant would be someone who has an interest > and an > > >>> understanding of how a particular component works (or should > work). A > > >>> lieutenant does not need to be a committer. Before committing a > patch > > >>> that touched on a particular component, the patch would have to > have > > >>> been +1'd by the component lieutenant before it could go in (or > if the > > >>> lieutenant is MIA, it was suggested by the Mighty Jon Hsieh that > two > > >>> +1s by other contributors/committers would do instead; this > latter > > >>> rule would probably also apply when a patch spanned components). > > >>> > > >>> We already have a few folks signed up, knowingly or otherwise, as > > >>> component owners [1]. > > >>> > > >>> What do folks think? > > >>> > > >>> Should we go ahead w/ this project? If so, any volunteers (I > signed > > >>> up a few of the obvious component leads)? I can add you as > component > > >>> lieutenant into JIRA. We can add more components if you don't > see > > >>> your interest listed. > > >>> > > >>> St.Ack > > >>> > > >>> 1. http://www.meetup.com/hbaseusergroup/events/80621872/ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Todd Lipcon > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Todd Lipcon > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >
