-1s should always act as vetos -Todd
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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) >> -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
