On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Ben Slater wrote:
> For anyone that’s interested, I’ve submitted my doc changes for point 2
> below (emphasising contributions other than new features) here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12906
>
> I haven’t added anything about the sponsor/shep
For anyone that’s interested, I’ve submitted my doc changes for point 2
below (emphasising contributions other than new features) here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12906
I haven’t added anything about the sponsor/shepherd idea as doesn’t seem to
be agreed at this point.
Cheers
>
> I strongly feel that there should be a better way e.g. a summary field in
> JIRA which filters out the discussions, arguments, solutions etc.and just
> crisply summarizes the problem, solution under discussion and the current
> status.
I've personally found that attaching a design doc for mod
Thanks for the information Jeremy.
My main concern is around making JIRAs easy to understand. I am not sure how
community feels about it. But, I have personally observed that long discussion
thread on JIRAs is not user friendly for someone trying to understand the
ticket or may be trying to co
Regarding low hanging fruit, on the How To Contribute page [1] we’ve tried to
keep a list of lhf tickets [2] linked to help people get started. They are
usually good starting points and don’t require much context. I rarely see
duplicates from lhf tickets.
Regarding duplicates, in my experienc
Hi,
We need to understand that time is precious for all of us. Even if a developer
has intentions to contribute, he may take months to contribute his first patch
or may be longer. Some common entry barriers are:
1. Difficult to identify low hanging fruits. 30 JIRA comments on a ticket and a
ne
I like the idea of a goal-based approach. I think that would make
coming to a consensus a bit easier particularly if a larger number of
people are involved.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Dikang Gu wrote:
> My 2 cents. I'm wondering is it a good idea to have some high level goals
> for the major
My 2 cents. I'm wondering is it a good idea to have some high level goals
for the major release? For example, the goals could be something like:
1. Improve the scalability/reliability/performance by X%.
2. Add Y new features (feature A, B, C, D...).
3. Fix Z known issues (issue A, B, C, D...).
I
Recently there was another discussion on documentation and comments [1]
On one hand, documentation and comments will help newcomers to familiarise
themselves with the codebase. On the other - one may get up to speed by
reading the code and adding some docs. Such things may require less
oversight a
Agreed.
--
AY
On 7 November 2016 at 16:38:07, Jeff Jirsa (jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com) wrote:
‘Accepted’ JIRA status seems useful, but would encourage something more
explicit like ‘Concept Accepted’ or similar to denote that the concept is
agreed upon, but the actual patch itself may not be ac
‘Accepted’ JIRA status seems useful, but would encourage something more
explicit like ‘Concept Accepted’ or similar to denote that the concept is
agreed upon, but the actual patch itself may not be accepted yet.
/bikeshed.
On 11/7/16, 2:56 AM, "Ben Slater" wrote:
>Thanks Dave. The shepherd c
Thanks Dave. The shepherd concept sounds a lot like I had in mind (and a
better name).
One other thing I noted from the Mesos process - they have an “Accepted”
jira status that comes after open and means “at least one Mesos developer
thought that the ideas proposed in the issue are worth pursuing
Hi Ben,
A few ideas to add to your suggestions [inline]:
On 2016-11-06 13:51 (-0800), Ben Slater wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I thought I would add a couple of observations and suggestions as someone
> who has both personally made my first contributions to the project in the
> last few months and some
Ben,
Thank you for providing two thoughtful, concrete recommendations.
There is some good feedback in general on this thread, but I'm calling
Ben's response out because point #1 is important to discuss and point
#2 is immediately actionable.
> 1) I think some process of assigning a committer of a
Hi All,
I thought I would add a couple of observations and suggestions as someone
who has both personally made my first contributions to the project in the
last few months and someone in a leadership role in an organisation
(Instaclustr) that is feeling it’s way through increasing our contribution
On 11/04/2016 06:43 PM, Jeff Beck wrote:
> I run the local Cassandra User Group and I would love to help get the
> community more involved. I would propose holding a night to add patches to
> Cassandra some will be simple things like making sure some asserts have
> proper messages with them etc, b
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
> misunderstandings.
>
> Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
> people with the expertise necessary to review them. In some c
Hi Tyler,
There is a nice guide now in the docs on how to contribute[1].
If you try it and find holes you can also help by contributing to those
docs.
-Jake
[1]: http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/index.html
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Tyler Tolley
wrote:
> Just want to we
Just want to weigh in my 2 cents. I've been following the dev list for
quite a while and wanted to contribute. As I approached trying to handle
some lhf, I couldn't find any instructions on how to check out, build, test
or any guidance on coding standards and best practices. Maybe these existed
and
Hi Ed,
I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
misunderstandings.
Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
people with the expertise necessary to review them. In some cases it can
amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple peopl
"I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual proper
reviews to non-review +1s."
Again, you are implying that only you can do a proper job.
Lets be specific here: You and I are working on this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
Now, Ariel reported t
I run the local Cassandra User Group and I would love to help get the
community more involved. I would propose holding a night to add patches to
Cassandra some will be simple things like making sure some asserts have
proper messages with them etc, but some may be slightly larger. The goal
being to
Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance regression.
Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to minimise the
odds of such a thing happening.
I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefe
"There is also the issue of specialisation. Very few people can be trusted
with review of arbitrary
Cassandra patches. I can count them all on fingers of one hand."
I have to strongly disagree here. The Cassandra issue tracker is over
12000 tickets. I do not think that cassandra has added 12000 "
I’m sure that impactful, important, and/or potentially destabilising patches
will continue getting reviewed
by those engineers.
As for patches that no organisation with a strong enough commercial interest
cares about, they probably won’t.
Engineering time is quite expensive, most employers are u
This has always been a concern. We’ve always had a backlog on unreviewed
patches.
Reviews (real reviews, not rubber-stamping a +1 formally) are real work, often
taking as much work
as creating the patch in question. And taking as much expertise (or more).
It’s also not ‘fun’ and doesn’t lend it
To be clear, getting the community more involved is a super hard,
critically important problem to which I don't have a concrete answer
other than I'm going to keep reaching out for opinions, ideas and
involvement.
Just like this.
Please speak up here if you have ideas on how this could work.
On
27 matches
Mail list logo