+1 Vetos are vetos. We're not changing how votes are done, as far as I know, just guiding contributors to helpful and knowledgeable folks, and streamlining RTC a bit.
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Todd Lipcon wrote: > -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" <-- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
