[so many mistakes without spelling check, sorry for it]
Jonathan,
I can understand why you refactored the code a lot in the last few month.
And I saw you were working hard to improve it in the last few months.
However, the talents from Facebook have done a lot of work to bring
Cassandra to the
Jonathan,
I can understand why you refactored the code a lot in the last few month.
And I saw you were working hard to improve it in the last few months.
However, the talents from Facebook has done a lot of work to bring Cassandra
to the world. And they have deployed it to the production system
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Sandeep Tata wrote:
> I think it is reasonable that a codebase that has evolved for over two
> years has significant opportunity for refactoring when it is opened to
> a host of new developers. That said, large scale refactoring *at this
> stage* hurts us in two way
Johan, the wiki pages are great! I think they will help iron out our
process for contributing and committing.
(I added a pointer to the formatting conventions in HowToContribute ,
can't think of anything else to add)
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CSDR/HowToContribute
> http://cwi
The refactoring question seems to be a bit of thorn:
> My understanding was that new committers come in and start with some feature
> implement that and then slowly start looking into what more they could do
> going forward. It is NOT come in and refactor the hell out of the system
> because you l
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >> Well, I feel tricked into a vote now. That is NOT right. The vote
> >> should come from the community - not the mentors. Whether you like it
> >> or not.
> >>
> >
> > Tricked into a vote? What are you accusing me of, scheming in your back?
Post-commit review works for *many* Apache projects ... but I agree -
it might not work Cassandra at this stage yet. The DVCS approach we
already had. While I am a big fan usually that doesn't sound like the
right path here.
cheers
--
Torsten
>> Well, I feel tricked into a vote now. That is NOT right. The vote
>> should come from the community - not the mentors. Whether you like it
>> or not.
>>
>
> Tricked into a vote? What are you accusing me of, scheming in your back?
I am not accusing you but instead was just expressing a feeling.
> I think we have a handle on this now. All changes are put on Jira for
> review and are not committed until there is at least one +1 from a
> reviewer. (I personally prefer post-commit review because manually
> attaching and applying patches is tedious but we don't have enough
> people following t
Jonathan Ellis wrote on 04/07/2009 09:02:22 PM:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Avinash Lakshman
> wrote:
> > The part that is very disconcerting are the following:
> > (1) If one becomes a committer one is not expected to blitz through the
code
> > base and start refactoring everything.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >> Unfortunately no one noticed that the
> >> actual authors bringing the code were NOT on the private list where
> >> the vote was held. So we got a new committer without the consent
> >> and/or feedback of the original authors. A big surpr
+1 for Sandeeps development process suggestions.
In order to address some of the issues brought forward in this thread I
have adapted the following wiki pages from other projects and from
various emails. They could serve as the basis for an initial process.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/disp
I joined the Cassandra-dev list earlier today so I post with hesitation,
knowing that others here have much more knowledge of the project. However,
I hope that my thoughts can provide useful and objective "outsider
perspective."
The Facebook team has created a really groundbreaking database that
Torsten Curdt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 05:30, Ian Holsman wrote:
guys.
we have a private list to discuss the pro's and con's of people being a
comitter.
keep these personal discussions off the development list. It doesn't help
anyone.
Not sure I agree here. I did not see the thread talk
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 06:12, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Matt.
> please don't.
> your comments are just as valuable as anyone else's.
Yes, keep it comming!
..
> many times (on other projects) people's names are put forth as possible
> committers (or members) and the feedback is 'not yet'. This can't
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 05:30, Ian Holsman wrote:
> guys.
> we have a private list to discuss the pro's and con's of people being a
> comitter.
> keep these personal discussions off the development list. It doesn't help
> anyone.
Not sure I agree here. I did not see the thread talk about the
pros/
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 05:11, Avinash Lakshman
wrote:
> Point #1 I would love to have committers from outside but the way this
> happened took all of us by surprise. Granted we were not on the list but if
> I were one of the committers I would have definitely pinged one of the other
> committters
Look, what you're saying here is basically "we know better and you're
stupid, so don't touch our code and don't ask questions, we can't provide
answers anyway". I'm hoping that's not the way you meant it (emails do that)
but that's the essence of what came across. You just can't run an open
source
>> 2. A missing definition of development process:
>> - What is considered a valid code review?
>> - How much are changes discussed up-front?
>
> I think we have a handle on this now. All changes are put on Jira for
> review and are not committed until there is at least one +1 from a
> reviewer.
Indeed ... but we did not see any vote of them. Which should have
gotten us suspicious.
Water under the bridge.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 02:39, Ian Holsman wrote:
> just on a point here.
> They were invited from Day 1 (Actually 20-Jan-2009) to be on there. It
> wasn't done out of malice.
>> Unfortunately no one noticed that the
>> actual authors bringing the code were NOT on the private list where
>> the vote was held. So we got a new committer without the consent
>> and/or feedback of the original authors. A big surprise.
>
>
> I disagree here, I was fully aware that we hadn't for
21 matches
Mail list logo
