I'd like to volunteer for client, tools (copytable, export/import, etc and others that will come up in the future).
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'd add WAL/HLog, Mutations (Put/Delete), Memstore, and Coprocessors to > what I'd volunteer for since I've been in that code a lot. > > > > ________________________________ > From: lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:13 PM > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants? > > 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 >
