On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps it's worth while refreshing the owners concept? I think it's a > reasonable way to manage the problem, but requires participants willing to > make the commitment. I find it funny that there's so few owners, 0-1 owner > per component in general. With as many active committers as we have, I > would think we could manage a solid showing of 2+ owners each. With as many > of us as there are who are making a living on the project, I think this > should be possible. > > Let me freshen up the owners list. In my previous mail I was giving the impression that I though 'lieutenants/owners' is not working but when I started to list out default owners in response to Andrew and then after sending the mail, continued the listing in my head (matteo for snapshotting, stack on rpc, larsh on scan, etc.), while our coverage may not be complete, we ain't doing too bad here. > Then again, maybe my perception of active committers is skewed? For > instance, I am guilty of some level of delinquency regarding my > responsibilities to the mapreduce component as of late. > > Fellas get busy and do real work. It can't be helped (smile). St.Ack > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone > and > > > unable to hear clearly. > > > > > > > > Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic > mentioned > > in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated. > > > > > > > You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up > > what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It > came > > up out of this discussion [2]. > > > > More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt > at > > getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting > > crap commits. > > > > > > > > > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. > > > > > > > > Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on > > REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale. > > > > > > > > > Owners are not around > > > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the > > > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer > > > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. > > > > > > The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by > > random committers == an owner's +1. > > > > > > > I am not in favor of requiring more > > > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 > > and > > > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy > of > > > CTR for trivial changes. > > > > > > > > > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for > > substantive > > patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so. > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > 1. > > > > > http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html > > 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s: > > > > > > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions > > > > > > > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to > > give > > > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not > > progress > > > > beyond discussion. > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA? > > > > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> a > > > écrit > > > > : > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I gave +1 already > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > >> > Best regards, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > - Andy > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > > > Piet > > > > > Hein > > > > > >> > (via Tom White) > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > > > Hein > > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >
