+1. Thanks for coming up with this idea and sending out this note, Tim. I think this is the right move.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > I just wanted to follow up on the previous emails about starting the code > review process for your Impala patches. We'd really like the process to go > as smoothly as possible > > One thing we really need to figure out is how we might test and maintain > PPC code. We only really have access to x86 build infra and it isn't > feasible for us to maintain PPC code that we can't test. It's a burden on > contributors who want to touch the code and gain confidence they're not > breaking anything, and also on PPC devs who will likely get accidentally > broken repeatedly. > > I'm also concerned making sure that the code review process goes as > smoothly as possible, since each iteration can take a lot of time, > especially if we're working across different time zones. We have a fairly > high bar for code quality and maintainability, and in our experience it > takes a bit of time for contributors to calibrate for that and post code > reviews that can get through the process smoothly. > > I'd suggest that you should identify some small platform-agnostic fixes in > your patchsets and start off with posting code reviews for those. That way > we can make progress and get you ramped up on the code review process > before we've resolved the more difficult PPC testing questions. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/Contributing+to+Impala > is our main reference for the process. > > Thanks, > Tim
