My 2 cents here... I know that I got good and productive feedback through the review process and I am happy it was included before it was committed. I agree that that the review does not need to be done by the PMC members but should be handled on the DEV list. I am sure that for every PR which has a review process in the DEV list and enough +1 voting for it it will be committed even if none of the PMC tested it. I this only if and when we see PR with enough +1 which are not committed then we can think of speeding it up with RTC or adding more committers. So bottom line is +1 for RTC Eran
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 7:55 AM Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > See in-lined... > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 04:25AM, moon soo Lee wrote: > > > > > > I don't see how it is possible. Empirically it isn't ever a case as > well. > > > Could you please elaborate how this might happen in your view? > > > > > > > > Let me share some history about Zeppelin project, > > It was developed in CTR way in the beginning. and it continued until > > sometime around Zeppelin enters Apache incubation. Then somehow naturally > > switched to RTC. > > > > We didn't explicitly discussed about CTR/RTC change at that time, so i > > can't say the exact reason. But i can guess the reason. Users were > growing > > rapidly at that time and most of them build Zeppelin from master branch. > > And we didn't wanted to break the code and become extremely careful to > > merge pullrequest without review. That's how RTC landed into Zeppelin, i > > think. > > > > After review becomes so important, we started respect any review from not > > only committers but also contributors (non-committers). That continued > > until now. And now I see the only difference between committer and > > contributor is that committer can initiate lazy consensus. So > participating > > review becomes one of the major way influencing the project. > > > > But obviously, by their nature, 'R' in CTR is less encouraging compare to > > RTC. Again I'm not saying 'R' is not in CTR. If someone say 'R' in CTR is > > more encouraging than 'R' in RTC, then i also can say, RTC is faster then > > CTR. I mean less encouraging is 'compare to' RTC. > > > > And while committers goes with CTR, contributors will remain RTC. > > Yup, but it has nothing to do with the development model. > > > Because of this nature of CTR / RTC differences, there's chances to > reduce > > influences from contributor (non-committer) in this project and my worry > > here was about this. > > Again, I don't see how it is possible. Once the commit is pushed everyone > including non-committers are able to look at it. If there's something wrong > with it - the issue can be raised same way as before. > > > If you can share some experience from Bigtop, especially about those who > is > > not a committer, after changing RTC -> CTR, that would be really > > interesting and helpful. > > Nothing changed for contributors from that stand point of view. Someone > needs > to review their code before committing. And that's an increased level of > trust > (sorry, it is overloaded): contributor needs to be guided and perhaps > watched. > But with a committer you can be sure that if a feedback is desirable the > said > committer will proactive search for it in the comminity. And if change is > trivial - he'll just go ahead and commit the stuff once it is ready. > > I'd say we haven't seen much of a change in the flow once we switched. > People > are still asking for review at times. Or just go and commit the stuff once > they need to. We still discuss things on JIRAs and dev@ - same as before. > > > > > But what I agree is, CTR can be faster than RTC. That can help speed > up > > > the > > > > development of Zeppelin and that's what I personally really want and > > > can't > > > > wait. > > > > > > > > So, to me, applying CTR for this reason is more than welcome. But I > think > > > > we need some preparation to keep the consensus in the community. > > > > > > It isn't only about speeding up. It is about the maturity and mutual > > > appreciation of my fellow committers, doing 'the right thing'. > > > > > Even though I agree and I want to go CTR, I don't believe community have > > CTR is more mature than RTC. vise versa. > > There are different criteria of maturity. What I was saying is the > committers > have to be grown-up for sure. And becoming a committer might be a bit more > lengthy process, because you'd want to make sure that this next committer > guy > will be doing good by the project. Instead of being a drive-by shooter. > > Cos >
