Branko,
Personally, it's not clear to me why the decision on having RTC process
for committers for most critical modules shows our immaturity in a sense
of open source collaboration.
As Raul properly noted below, the committers were always using RTC
informally for most of the modules trying
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 05.03.2016 04:43, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > It saddens me to see this coming to it ;(
>
> Yeah. You guys are introducing red tape that's a barrier for new
> committers and a bureaucratic trap for everyone else.
>
> For example: what ha
On 05.03.2016 04:43, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> It saddens me to see this coming to it ;(
Yeah. You guys are introducing red tape that's a barrier for new
committers and a bureaucratic trap for everyone else.
For example: what happens when a module owner takes off for a couple
months? Which is l
I recommend to add Andrey Novikov as Visor maintainer.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Oops, a misprint. Fixed, thanks Pavel.
>
> --
> Denis
>
>
> On 3/21/2016 6:14 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>
>> Suspicious entries:
>> * C++ API Ivan Veselovsky
>> * Docker, Mesos, YARN int
Oops, a misprint. Fixed, thanks Pavel.
--
Denis
On 3/21/2016 6:14 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
Suspicious entries:
* C++ API Ivan Veselovsky
* Docker, Mesos, YARN integration Igor Sapego
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Sergi Vladykin
wrote:
Looks good.
Sergi
2016-03-21 16:37 GMT+03:00 Denis
Suspicious entries:
* C++ API Ivan Veselovsky
* Docker, Mesos, YARN integration Igor Sapego
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Sergi Vladykin
wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2016-03-21 16:37 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I've prepared a draft of the maintainers list.
> >
> >
>
Looks good.
Sergi
2016-03-21 16:37 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda :
> Igniters,
>
> I've prepared a draft of the maintainers list.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
>
> Please review it and/or adjust it whenever is needed.
Igniters,
I've prepared a draft of the maintainers list.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
Please review it and/or adjust it whenever is needed.
If you have any thoughts, concerns let's discuss them there.
--
Denis
Sergi,
I'll prepare a draft of the list of modules with their maintainers in
the nearest days.
--
Denis
On 3/10/2016 1:37 PM, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
If everyone is ok with the proposals, then we need to set this new approach
and properly document it.
Also we need to select list of RTC module
If everyone is ok with the proposals, then we need to set this new approach
and properly document it.
Also we need to select list of RTC modules and elect their maintainers.
Sergi
2016-03-05 19:31 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin :
> +1 to the original proposal of Denis to introduce module maintainers
+1 to the original proposal of Denis to introduce module maintainers and
RTC process
+1 to the proposal of Raul to restrict number of core modules, which
require maintainers review
Sergi
2016-03-05 6:43 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik :
> It saddens me to see this coming to it ;(
>
> On Thu, Mar 0
It saddens me to see this coming to it ;(
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:54PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This
> process has to be followed by both contributors and committers.
>
> There is a reason for this I have in mind. Ignite
+1 on Raul’s proposal.
-Roman
On Friday, March 4, 2016 2:47 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic
modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark,
ignite-hadoop, ignite-indexing, etc.
But it seems cou
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> * CTR for contributors for all modules, for obvious reasons (no commit
> access ;-)).
>
Obviously, I meant RTC!
*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/r
+1 on Raul’s proposal, specifically ignite-core should always follow RTC
process.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic
> modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark,
> ignite-
I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic
modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark,
ignite-hadoop, ignite-indexing, etc.
But it seems counterproductive to impose strict RTC for modules like
ignite-kafka, ignite-flume, ignite-twitter, i
+1 (but I hope it's still up to a committer to decide whether a change
should need a review or not.)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the
> functionality, RTC makes sense.
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:
I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the
functionality, RTC makes sense.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> I thought we were already on RTC process.
>
> What do you mean with contributors following this process?
>
> Raúl.
> On 3 Mar 2016 11:5
I thought we were already on RTC process.
What do you mean with contributors following this process?
Raúl.
On 3 Mar 2016 11:54, "Denis Magda" wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This process
> has to be followed by both contributors and committer
+1 - sounds very reasonable and practical.
On 3/3/2016 5:54 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
Igniters,
I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This
process has to be followed by both contributors and committers.
There is a reason for this I have in mind. Ignite is a complex
plat
+1 from me. I could be a maintainer for following modules: visor-console,
schema-import-utility, ignite-web-console, scalar.
We could even copy-paste rules from Spark wiki to ours.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> I would propose to switch back to review-then-c
21 matches
Mail list logo
