What if we have a +1 from someone on the list and at the same time a -1 from someone off the list ?
Cheers On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>wrote: > I agree. I think those listed on the component should be those to ping for > a review but it's just that... With the expectation that such volunteers > will do reviews as needed. And a +1 from any on the list will do, or two > +1s from any committer. > > If we have too many volunteers in one area and not enough in another, let's > allow Stack to spread some effort around. > > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Gregory Chanan wrote: > > > How are we deciding what counts as a component? Based on what people say > > here? Some of these seem vastly different in scope (e.g. Client vs > > HalfStoreFile). > > > > Also, will it be obvious, from the JIRA, who I need to get reviews from > and > > how many? From Stack's e-mail it sounds like clicking on the component > > will give you a list of names; perhaps we should make it explicit in that > > link that one +1 is enough for anyone on this list, otherwise two +1s are > > necessary. We need to make it clear what the process is for new > > contributors (more process is okay, but it needs to be fair and > explicit). > > > > What about patches that touch more than one component? > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Amandeep Khurana <ama...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 < > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
