For me, I'd say hbck, copytable, snapshots, and likely assignment soon. Jon.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan < ramkrishna.vasude...@huawei.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // j...@cloudera.com
