[GitHub] incubator-rocketmq issue #19: [ROCKETMQ-14] rocketmq-14 unit test updated

[Jaskey]

Github user Jaskey commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-rocketmq/pull/19
  
@vongosling Is there any problem on this unit test code? 


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

On RocketMQ community projects

[Roman Shtykh]

Folks,
I think an important part of RocketMQ project growth will be an integration 
with other platforms.Currently, there are a couple of such integrations [1], 
but they are a bit outdated and not all of them have Apache license.
Shall we make them Apache licensed? Shall we keep them in [1]?
I would rather move them under https://github.com/apache/rocketmq* umbrella and 
make them Apache licensed if there are no legal issues.Thoughts?

[1] https://github.com/rocketmq

Regards, Roman Shtykh

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

[Bruce Snyder]

Thank you, Justin. I'm not sure if the IP review is complete.

I have submitted the podling report via the Incubator wiki page.

Bruce

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >  - A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
> towards
> >  graduation
>
> Here’s my suggestions:
> 1. Confirm the IP review is complete.
> 2. Make our first Apache release
> 3. Vote in our first committer / PMC members
>
> Is 1 complete?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin




-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  - A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards
>  graduation

Here’s my suggestions:
1. Confirm the IP review is complete.
2. Make our first Apache release
3. Vote in our first committer / PMC members

Is 1 complete?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

[Bruce Snyder]

John and Justin,

The one item where I would like some guidance is with the following item in
the report:

   - A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards
   graduation


I'm not sure what the IPMC would like to see in this item specifically
beyond what the project believes is important for graduation.

Can you guys please provide some advice on this item?

Bruce

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Bruce Snyder  wrote:

> I have updated the January podling report on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ROCKETMQ/
> Podling+Report+January+2017
>
> Please contribute anything the wiki page that you feel should be included
> in the final podling report as I plan to post the report to the IPMC
> tomorrow.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:08 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Dear podling,
>>
>> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
>> Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
>> prepare your quarterly board report.
>>
>> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 18 January 2017, 10:30 am PDT.
>> The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
>> report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
>> before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
>> submission (Wed, January 04).
>>
>> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
>> PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
>> very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
>> meeting.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> The Apache Incubator PMC
>>
>> Submitting your Report
>>
>> --
>>
>> Your report should contain the following:
>>
>> *   Your project name
>> *   A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
>> the project or necessarily of its field
>> *   A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
>> towards graduation.
>> *   Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
>> aware of
>> *   How has the community developed since the last report
>> *   How has the project developed since the last report.
>>
>> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2017
>>
>> Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
>> this page is created from a template.
>>
>> Mentors
>> ---
>>
>> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
>> the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
>> following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
>> for the Incubator PMC.
>>
>> Incubator PMC
>>
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&
> 5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ 
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

[Bruce Snyder]

Review Board is really nice if the project decides to adopt the RTC model
because it can hook directly into the git commit process preventing commits
until the review has completed successfully. I have used it with great
success in the past on a project with more than 30 team members committing
and it worked well, but this was not an open source project. At any rate,
it's something to consider.

I know that there is a concern about the quality of the code, so in
addition to considering RTC, I suggest first considering the establishment
of standards for the Definition of Done for any contribution and publishing
them in the wiki. E.g., code is not considered complete without unit tests,
integration tests and documentation. Establishing and communicating such
requirements in the beginning will set the expectations now for all
contributors.

Most projects that adopt the RTC model do so in order to strictly control
incoming changes to the code base. Tomcat is a good example -- the project
keeps very tight control over changes because it is such a critical piece
of infrastructure for so many users.

Bruce

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:50 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> Not sure if it helps for CTR/RTC, ASF does host a review board instance (
> https://reviews.apache.org ).
>
> Personally, I agree with Justin's sentiments about process.  I do see a
> number of projects that use RTC.  They're generally projects dominated by a
> single vendor.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:22 AM Von Gosling  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >  1. Refer to RTC or CTR problem
> >
> > For commit, may be, we could use CTR. For PR, we would prefer to RTC. We
> > are high valuing the quality in RocketMQ. So, it is a better way to use
> the
> > conservative strategy from my opinion :-)
> >
> > 2.   Refer to PPMC and committer relationship
> > Thanks Justin refers. We are not familiar with Apache recommended way for
> > this problem. But i  have learn about something about PMC additional
> > responsibilities. IMO, we really want to keep the community diversity.
> > Committer may be a good candidate for entering into PMC. For the same
> > reason, contributor may be a good candidate for becoming Committer.
> >
> > AFAIK, Apache Tomcat have separate the PMC member and committer role.
> And,
> > Apache Storm may regard as the committer as PMC member when someone make
> a
> > great achievement for the project[1].
> >
> > 1. http://storm.apache.org/contribute/People.html <
> > http://storm.apache.org/contribute/People.html>
> >
> >
> >
> > > 在 2017年1月3日，16:33，Justin Mclean  写道：
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> IMO, not only the number of PR, more concerned about the quality of
> PR.
> > >
> > > Just try not to have the bar too high / wait too long to vote potential
> > candidates in. This may discourage people being invoved and hinder
> > community growth. But it’s totally up to this PPMC to decide this.
> > >
> > >> PPMC number of members should be less than the number of committer,
> > IMHO,
> > >> the committers are not all PPMC.
> > >
> > > Which is fine being a PPMC/PMC member had additional responsibilities
> [1]
> > >
> > >> RTC +1 The reference quality is the first priority.
> > >
> > > JFYI This is uncommon in Apache projects and all projects I have been
> > involved in have been CTR. In CTR any commit is just a revert away. I’ve
> > not seen many cases where it’s been an issue, especially where you have
> > good test coverage and code quality metrics. But again it’s totally up to
> > the PPMC to decide.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#policy
> >
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

[Von Gosling]

Hi,

 1. Refer to RTC or CTR problem

For commit, may be, we could use CTR. For PR, we would prefer to RTC. We are 
high valuing the quality in RocketMQ. So, it is a better way to use the 
conservative strategy from my opinion :-)

2.   Refer to PPMC and committer relationship
Thanks Justin refers. We are not familiar with Apache recommended way for this 
problem. But i  have learn about something about PMC additional 
responsibilities. IMO, we really want to keep the community diversity. 
Committer may be a good candidate for entering into PMC. For the same reason, 
contributor may be a good candidate for becoming Committer.

AFAIK, Apache Tomcat have separate the PMC member and committer role. And, 
Apache Storm may regard as the committer as PMC member when someone make a 
great achievement for the project[1].

1. http://storm.apache.org/contribute/People.html 




> 在 2017年1月3日，16:33，Justin Mclean  写道：
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> IMO, not only the number of PR, more concerned about the quality of PR.
> 
> Just try not to have the bar too high / wait too long to vote potential 
> candidates in. This may discourage people being invoved and hinder community 
> growth. But it’s totally up to this PPMC to decide this.
> 
>> PPMC number of members should be less than the number of committer, IMHO,
>> the committers are not all PPMC.
> 
> Which is fine being a PPMC/PMC member had additional responsibilities [1]
> 
>> RTC +1 The reference quality is the first priority.
> 
> JFYI This is uncommon in Apache projects and all projects I have been 
> involved in have been CTR. In CTR any commit is just a revert away. I’ve not 
> seen many cases where it’s been an issue, especially where you have good test 
> coverage and code quality metrics. But again it’s totally up to the PPMC to 
> decide.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#policy

[GitHub] incubator-rocketmq issue #17: [ROCKETMQ-19] Synchronize LinkedList.add() in ...

[vongosling]

Github user vongosling commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-rocketmq/pull/17
  
Thanks for your ISSUE review before PR @Zhang-Ke 


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] incubator-rocketmq issue #26: [ROCKETMQ-26]add new way to send messages in a...

[thisisbaozi]

Github user thisisbaozi commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-rocketmq/pull/26
  
@vongosling I have added a example for it


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

Re: [DISCUSS] Getting rid of MixAll class

[Roman Shtykh]

Hi Lollipop,
Thanks! Great to know your opinion, since this class is used throughout most of 
the code base.
Regards,
Roman Shtykh 

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:57 PM, lollipop  wrote:
 

 Hi，Roman:

It seems cool to combine the helper methods from MixAll and UtilAll into
one main Class and extract the constants to a new Class named like
'XXXConst'.
Could you please do the refactor work and submit a PR, and we will review
it later.

Best Regards,
Lollipop

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Roman Shtykh 
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> MixAll class in 'common' module looks really like a mix of many things :)
> It contains string constants and helper methods, while there's another
> class with helper methods (UtilAll) in the same module, and other classes
> in 'common' containing string constants.
>
> I propose to move all constants to a new class RocketMQProperties and all
> helper methods to UtilAll. Please see [1]
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ROCKETMQ-4
>
> Roman Shtykh
>