Thanks Thejas for the suggestion & others for jumping in. That seems fine for me. 2 days also seems good. Holidays are different in almost every country so I wouldn't exclude those.
I have followed the procedure used for the last Bylaws change and created a new Wiki page here: < https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Proposed+Changes+to+Hive+Project+Bylaws+-+April+2016 >. It includes this paragraph: "Minor issues (e.g. typos, code style issues, JavaDoc changes. At committer's discretion) can be committed after soliciting feedback/review on the mailing list and not receiving feedback within 2 days." I'm not a native speaker so feedback is welcome. I also fixed three typos in the Bylaws (and marked them as changed): < https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=62691925&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2 > Once the discussion settles down I'll open a vote thread on the user@ mailing list which requires a 2/3 majority of all active PMC members. I couldn't find a definition of "active" though. On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree we have a problem here. At least patches as small as this > shouldn't take too long to get reviewed. > > Knox seems to consider a very large set of patches as being under CTR > process. > I think hive is very large and mature project that I would lean > towards RTC process for most issues. I think we can make an exception > for very minor patches such as fixing typos and and checkstyle issues. > Maybe the process can be to solicit reviews for such minor patches by > sending an email to dev@ list and if no response is seen in 2 days, go > ahead and commit it ? > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been a long-time contributor to Hive (5 or so years) and have been > > voted in as a committer and I'm very grateful for that. I also understand > > that my situation is different than most or lots of committers as I'm not > > working for one of the big companies (Facebook, Cloudera, Hortonworks > etc.) > > where you can just ask someone sitting next to you to do a review. > > > > I'd really like to contribute more than I do currently but the process of > > getting patches in is painful for me (and other 'outside' contributors) > as > > it is hard to get reviews & things committed. The nature of most of my > > patches is very minor[1] (fixing typos, checkstyle issues etc.) and I > > understand that these are not the most interesting patches to review and > > are easy to miss. I don't blame anyone for this situation as I totally > > understand it and have been on the other side of this for other projects. > > > > Is there anything we can do to make it easier for me and others like me > to > > contribute here? I absolutely see the value in having "cleaner" code and > > when done in small batches it's usually not very disruptive either. > > > > The bylaws currently require a +1 from a committer who has not authored > the > > patch. Knox for example has a different policy [2] where they distinguish > > between major features and minor things which can be committed freely. > > > > Hive could adopt something similar or like a middle ground. These are > just > > two suggestions: > > > > 1) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) without > requiring > > an extra +1 > > 2) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) with Lazy > approval > > (i.e. wait 24 hours) > > > > Sorry for the long rant but I'd love some feedback on this and am looking > > forward to contributing more in the future. > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > [1] e.g. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12467> > > [2] < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process> >
