Reviewboard has been available! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6084
Now, you can submit your patch to reviewboard. https://reviews.apache.org/groups/Tajo/ On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Eli Reisman <[email protected]>wrote: > I agree rb is silly for small patches > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Henry, > > > > Yep agreed. Assume that's the case I would say unless someone > > objects :) > > > > In which case, talk and communicate, yadda, yadda, which you > > already know. > > > > Enjoy! > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > Senior Computer Scientist > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > Email: [email protected] > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] > > > > Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:00 PM > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: a discussion of dev process > > > > >Ah no, I meant that when someone submit a patch he or she shouldn't > > >required to create rb entry. It should be used as reccomended way to > > >submit > > >patch to help review > > > > > >- Henry > > > > > >On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Henry, > > >> > > >> I don't understand your comment -- isn't Review Board useless without > > >> a patch? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > >> Senior Computer Scientist > > >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > >> Email: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Henry Saputra <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > > >> Reply-To: "[email protected] <javascript:;>" < > > >> [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > >> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:07 PM > > >> To: "[email protected] <javascript:;>" < > > >> [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > >> Subject: Re: a discussion of dev process > > >> > > >> >+1 for it as long as patches are not required to create reviewboard > > >>entry. > > >> >It should be used as tool to help review large patches such as new > > >> >features > > >> >or refactor some code. > > >> > > > >> >- Henry > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I've requested the reviewboard. As we've been doing so far, we can > > >>use > > >> >>jira > > >> >> in order to share the patch and review it. In addition, we will be > > >>able > > >> >>to > > >> >> use reviewboard. > > >> >> > > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6084 > > >> >> > > >> >> - hyunsik > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> > > >> >>wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi Guys, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Actually, I agree with Mattmann in that not all patches need to > be > > >> >> > reviewed. Also, I agree with Jakob in that we should avoid the > > >> >>problems > > >> >> > caused by unexpected commits. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > How about this? Basically, we use RTC with only +1 vote passing > > >>before > > >> >> > merging a patch to master branch (i.e., trunk in svn term). Also, > > >>some > > >> >> > cases (e.g., trivial changes and site updates) do not require +1. > > >> >>This is > > >> >> > very simple. This approach will let us to avoid the significant > > >> >>problem > > >> >> > caused by unexpected commits, while it will mitigate the stress > of > > >> >>heavy > > >> >> > process. Of course, each committer by itself has to determine > > >>whether > > >> >>a > > >> >> > patch is trivial or not. Since the committers will have the > > >>capability > > >> >> for > > >> >> > this, it may be not problem. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Also, I think that three steps (creating a branch, working, and > > >> >>merging > > >> >> > the patch to master with consensus) suggested by Chris are very > > >>cool. > > >> >>We > > >> >> > can use this approach for some works. This approach will be also > a > > >> >> > convenient way to share on-going patches. In addition, this > > >>approach > > >> >>can > > >> >> > encourage two or more committers to collaborate on the same work. > > >>In > > >> >>some > > >> >> > cases, it can make some synergy. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks, > > >> >> > Hyunsik > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < > > >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Hi Guys, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> It's up to you. I've never been a fan of project bylaws. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> To me they "anticipate" things needing clarifying whereas to me, > > >> >> >> the discussions on list, the meetings at ApacheCon, the day to > day > > >> >> >> interactions that occur however, are much more socially fun, and > > >> >> >> wholly enjoyable to participate in then: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> "According to bylaw G, you are an X committer, in a year, you > can > > >> >> become a > > >> >> >> PMC member, etc." > > >> >> >> "Per the bylaws, which are different than the general Apache > > >> >>guidelines, > > >> >> >> VOTEs are required > > >> >> >> to have a x/4 majority, except for Tuesday, on which" blah blah > > >>blah > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Anyone object to simply stating those above along with social > > >>graces, > > >> >> >> and communication, are the bylaws for the project? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> S > > > > >
