Partial committers are people invited to work on a particular area, and they do not require sign-off to work on that area. They can get a sign-off and commit outside that area. That approach doesn't compare to this proposal.
Full committers are PMC members. As each PMC member is responsible for *every* line of code, then every PMC member should have complete rights to every line of code. Creating disparity flies in the face of a PMC member's responsibility. If I am a Spark PMC member, then I have responsibility for GraphX code, whether my name is Ankur, Joey, Reynold, or Greg. And interposing a barrier inhibits my responsibility to ensure GraphX is designed, maintained, and delivered to the Public. Cheers, -g (and yes, I'm aware of COMMITTERS; I've been changing that file for the past 12 years :-) ) On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > In fact, if you look at the subversion commiter list, the majority of > people here have commit access only for particular areas of the > project: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/COMMITTERS > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey Greg, > > > > Regarding subversion - I think the reference is to partial vs full > > committers here: > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html > > > > - Patrick > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> -1 (non-binding) > >> > >> This is an idea that runs COMPLETELY counter to the Apache Way, and is > >> to be severely frowned up. This creates *unequal* ownership of the > >> codebase. > >> > >> Each Member of the PMC should have *equal* rights to all areas of the > >> codebase until their purview. It should not be subjected to others' > >> "ownership" except throught the standard mechanisms of reviews and > >> if/when absolutely necessary, to vetos. > >> > >> Apache does not want "leads", "benevolent dictators" or "assigned > >> maintainers", no matter how you may dress it up with multiple > >> maintainers per component. The fact is that this creates an unequal > >> level of ownership and responsibility. The Board has shut down > >> projects that attempted or allowed for "Leads". Just a few months ago, > >> there was a problem with somebody calling themself a "Lead". > >> > >> I don't know why you suggest that Apache Subversion does this. We > >> absolutely do not. Never have. Never will. The Subversion codebase is > >> owned by all of us, and we all care for every line of it. Some people > >> know more than others, of course. But any one of us, can change any > >> part, without being subjected to a "maintainer". Of course, we ask > >> people with more knowledge of the component when we feel > >> uncomfortable, but we also know when it is safe or not to make a > >> specific change. And *always*, our fellow committers can review our > >> work and let us know when we've done something wrong. > >> > >> Equal ownership reduces fiefdoms, enhances a feeling of community and > >> project ownership, and creates a more open and inviting project. > >> > >> So again: -1 on this entire concept. Not good, to be polite. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg Stein > >> Director, Vice Chairman > >> Apache Software Foundation > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:31:58PM -0800, Matei Zaharia wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I wanted to share a discussion we've been having on the PMC list, as > well as call for an official vote on it on a public list. Basically, as the > Spark project scales up, we need to define a model to make sure there is > still great oversight of key components (in particular internal > architecture and public APIs), and to this end I've proposed implementing a > maintainer model for some of these components, similar to other large > projects. > >>> > >>> As background on this, Spark has grown a lot since joining Apache. > We've had over 80 contributors/month for the past 3 months, which I believe > makes us the most active project in contributors/month at Apache, as well > as over 500 patches/month. The codebase has also grown significantly, with > new libraries for SQL, ML, graphs and more. > >>> > >>> In this kind of large project, one common way to scale development is > to assign "maintainers" to oversee key components, where each patch to that > component needs to get sign-off from at least one of its maintainers. Most > existing large projects do this -- at Apache, some large ones with this > model are CloudStack (the second-most active project overall), Subversion, > and Kafka, and other examples include Linux and Python. This is also > by-and-large how Spark operates today -- most components have a de-facto > maintainer. > >>> > >>> IMO, adopting this model would have two benefits: > >>> > >>> 1) Consistent oversight of design for that component, especially > regarding architecture and API. This process would ensure that the > component's maintainers see all proposed changes and consider them to fit > together in a good way. > >>> > >>> 2) More structure for new contributors and committers -- in > particular, it would be easy to look up who's responsible for each module > and ask them for reviews, etc, rather than having patches slip between the > cracks. > >>> > >>> We'd like to start with in a light-weight manner, where the model only > applies to certain key components (e.g. scheduler, shuffle) and user-facing > APIs (MLlib, GraphX, etc). Over time, as the project grows, we can expand > it if we deem it useful. The specific mechanics would be as follows: > >>> > >>> - Some components in Spark will have maintainers assigned to them, > where one of the maintainers needs to sign off on each patch to the > component. > >>> - Each component with maintainers will have at least 2 maintainers. > >>> - Maintainers will be assigned from the most active and knowledgeable > committers on that component by the PMC. The PMC can vote to add / remove > maintainers, and maintained components, through consensus. > >>> - Maintainers are expected to be active in responding to patches for > their components, though they do not need to be the main reviewers for them > (e.g. they might just sign off on architecture / API). To prevent inactive > maintainers from blocking the project, if a maintainer isn't responding in > a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), other committers can merge the > patch, and the PMC will want to discuss adding another maintainer. > >>> > >>> If you'd like to see examples for this model, check out the following > projects: > >>> - CloudStack: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > > >>> - Subversion: > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html < > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html> > >>> > >>> Finally, I wanted to list our current proposal for initial components > and maintainers. It would be good to get feedback on other components we > might add, but please note that personnel discussions (e.g. "I don't think > Matei should maintain *that* component) should only happen on the private > list. The initial components were chosen to include all public APIs and the > main core components, and the maintainers were chosen from the most active > contributors to those modules. > >>> > >>> - Spark core public API: Matei, Patrick, Reynold > >>> - Job scheduler: Matei, Kay, Patrick > >>> - Shuffle and network: Reynold, Aaron, Matei > >>> - Block manager: Reynold, Aaron > >>> - YARN: Tom, Andrew Or > >>> - Python: Josh, Matei > >>> - MLlib: Xiangrui, Matei > >>> - SQL: Michael, Reynold > >>> - Streaming: TD, Matei > >>> - GraphX: Ankur, Joey, Reynold > >>> > >>> I'd like to formally call a [VOTE] on this model, to last 72 hours. > The [VOTE] will end on Nov 8, 2014 at 6 PM PST. > >>> > >>> Matei > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >> >
