+1 for KIP equivalent for Storm. We should probably call them something like Storm Feature/Improvement Proposals.
Well documented features could help new contributors to more quickly as they would have the context to start that feature. Unless one knows the product well, it is hard to have feature ideas, contribute, without some sort of guidance. Hugo > On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote: > > Hi Bobby, > In general, a KIP is required for adding New features, config > changes or backward-incompatible changes. Don't require > adding a KIP for bug-fixes. Devs who wants to add any > features will write up a wiki which has JIRA link, mailing > list discussion link and outline the Motivation, Public > interface changes and protocol changes etc ..a good example > here is > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-48+Delegation+token+support+for+Kafka. > > They can start the discussion thread once its ready and once everyone > agrees its in a good shape, a Vote thread starts . Once there are > required votes are in one can start the PR process and get it merged in. > Each release we can collect what features/fixes especially to > public interfaces that went in and roll it out in release > notes. This will give a better idea for the users on what > changed and added from previous version. > We can only enforce this to new feature/config/backward > incompatible change. Having this go through the discussion > phase will give us the early feedback and potentially caught > any issues before the implementation. > Thanks, > Harsha > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid> > wrote: > > Can you please explain how KIP currently works and how you would > like to see something similar in storm? > If we make the process more formal we will probably have less people > contributing, but we will probably have better overall patches. It > is a balancing act and having never used KIP I would like to > understand it better before going all in on it. > - Bobby > > > On Friday, June 9, 2017, 4:09:38 PM CDT, Stig Døssing > <generalbas....@gmail.com> wrote: > > This sounds like a good idea. KIPs seem to work well for Kafka. It's > easy > for discussions to get lost or just not seen on the mailing list. > > 2017-06-09 21:36 GMT+02:00 Harsha <st...@harsha.io>: > >> Hi All, >> We’ve seen good adoption of KIP approach in Kafka community >> and would like to see we adopt the similar approach for storm >> as well. >> Its hard to keep track of proposed changes and mailing list threads to >> know what all changes that are coming into and what design/backward >> incompatible changes being approved. It will be good to have this >> documented and go through discussion then Vote phase to get them >> approved before we merge the PRs. This will keep everyone informed of >> what changes happened even if they are not following the mailing list >> they can go to wiki to see the list of changes went into a release. >> Community overall will be well informed of the changes as well. Would >> like to hear your thoughts. >> >> Thanks, >> Harsha >> >
