+1 - sounds good! On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Josh Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would be happy to review all of the ECO codebase and examples to verify > that the package change has not caused any issues. > > -Josh > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That’s up to the project to decide. ;) > > > > Mentors are here to help you make sure what you decide upon is consistent > > with the Apache Way. > > > > -Taylor > > > > > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Karthik Ramasamy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Dave and Taylor for the advice. Owners is not probably what I > > meant. > > > Instead, I could call them Reviewers - for this PR. > > > > > > Long term since there are so many different modules and each committer > > > develop different area of expertise, what is the recommended > > > way to review the code and merge them into master? > > > > > > cheers > > > /karthik > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:56 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> As a mentor, I would recommend you avoid any concept of “ownership” > like > > >> the plague. It implies a project hierarchy that ASF projects do not > > have. > > >> > > >> In ASF projects committer bits are boolean. Bob’s committer bit is no > > >> different from Alice’s. Their project expertise may lie in different > > areas > > >> of the codebase, but they are inherently *trusted* not to make > reckless > > >> changes without collaboration/review with other committers. > > >> > > >> If you feel you must go down this path, I would suggest different > > language > > >> than “owner”. At best it should be an informal designation (not a > role) > > by > > >> a volunteer who is willing to help shepherd that section of the > codebase > > >> (e.g. help with/perform PR reviews, groom issues, revive discussions, > > >> etc.). I would also recommend documenting the concept, specifically > how > > >> others can get involved. > > >> > > >> -Taylor > > >> > > >>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Karthik Ramasamy <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Ashvin - > > >>> > > >>> It could be good to designate owners for different areas - let me > come > > up > > >>> with a list by the end of the today tonight. > > >>> > > >>> cheers > > >>> /karthik > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Ning Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Make sense to me. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Ashvin A <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Devs, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> PR 2840 renames com.twitter package to org.apache. This change > > touches > > >>>> more > > >>>>> than *2,127* files. Is there a test strategy for this change which > > >>>> updates > > >>>>> everything? I believe just depending on unit and integration tests > > may > > >> be > > >>>>> insufficient. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Also I am hoping git history will be preserved. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Should we create a coarse checklist and take ownership of manual > > >>>>> verification of individual components? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1. Examples > > >>>>> 2. Heron UI > > >>>>> 1. Metrics > > >>>>> 2. Logs > > >>>>> 3. API server > > >>>>> 4. Heron client > > >>>>> 5. Docker > > >>>>> 6. Schedulers > > >>>>> 1. Aurora > > >>>>> 2. Kubernetes > > >>>>> 3. Yarn > > >>>>> 4. .. > > >>>>> 7. Python > > >>>>> 8. Heron Tracker > > >>>>> 9. Heron metrics cache > > >>>>> 10. Heron Health manager > > >>>>> 11. ... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Ashvin > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Sent from A Mobile Device >
