Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Spoilsport ;-) On 25 November 2015 at 16:47, Upayavira wrote: > Not replying to this mail specifically, but to the thread in general... > > People keep using the terms RTC and CTR as if we all mean the same > thing. Please don't. If you must use these terms, please define what

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: > +1 (binding) -C > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like > to > > call a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) -C On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hi all, > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is > pasted below and also available on the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) -C On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like to

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Not replying to this mail specifically, but to the thread in general... People keep using the terms RTC and CTR as if we all mean the same thing. Please don't. If you must use these terms, please define what you mean by them. CTR is a less ambiguous term - I'd suggest we all assume that "commit"

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Very good point, but I’m not sure that CTR is that much less ambiguous. It would be interesting to compare different models both that users consider CTR as well as RTC. I have a feeling there is some overlap of “CTR” and “RTC”. I’m pretty sure that a lot of folks call some CTR cases “RTC”. It’s

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> > >> > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development. >> >> I don't

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and signed it himself. no other contributors signed the SGA. On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui wrote: > Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu. > > I'm trying to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Wave Release 0.4.0-incubating (RC10)

Bump. I could still do with another vote from an IPMC member. Thanks, Ali On 12 November 2015 at 16:02, Ali Lown wrote: > Hi all, > > I could still do with someone else taking a look at these artifacts. > > Currently there is one +1 vote from Justin Mclean, and one +1 vote >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 05:12PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > RTC is regulation. That's not a synonym for control when it's > conflated with suspicion of people. Regulation is a set of deliberate > checks on a system. > > Good regulation estimates (or reacts to) a system's natural excesses, > then

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > Isn't it an issue of scalability? With pre-commit code reviews, typically > the uploader of the code will pick out one or two people to review the code > who know the area well. Or, if no one is picked by the submitter of

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Much as I don’t care to participate in GPL projects I also don’t care to > participate in pure RTC projects as both restrict me in ways I very much > dislike, > > You're entitled to that opinion. I personally

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

RTC is regulation. That's not a synonym for control when it's conflated with suspicion of people. Regulation is a set of deliberate checks on a system. Good regulation estimates (or reacts to) a system's natural excesses, then attempts to constrain existential threats. It isn't a lack of trust,

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > And that goes, as always, to the question "Who makes the decision about the > _right_ level of trust". The community. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe,

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Most of the Hadoop ecosystem uses RTC. I can't speak to other projects but on the one I chair there's no conspiracy to exclude anyone. I chair Bigtop. We recently tested a switch to CTR. It went very well and so we just wrapped up a vote to make it the permanent state of affairs. I think this is

[ANNOUNCE] CFP open for ApacheCon North America 2016

Community growth starts by talking with those interested in your project. ApacheCon North America is coming, are you? We are delighted to announce that the Call For Presentations (CFP) is now open for ApacheCon North America. You can submit your proposed sessions at

Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu. I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

> On 22 Nov 2015, at 22:34, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > The major question here, for me, is: if the project is RTC, then why > would I make an effort to become a committer if at the end of the day > I'm still not trusted to know when to ask for review? It'd be less work > to

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > I don't think Git is particularly empowering RTC - there's nothing in it that > requires someone to look over one's shoulder. On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Harbs wrote: > AIUI, there’s two ways

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

If a review is required for non-code changes to the main branch, then I agree. I’m sure you agree that reviews on code make for less bugs. We all make mistakes and can overlook things. It seems kind of extreme to assume that this kind of required review is all about control. Since anyone who

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they aren’t)? 2. What makes you think that code reviews after the commit are any less thorough than reviews required before the commit? If you don’t trust your community to do code reviews after you commit then there is a problem

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

And I challenge you to comb over all HBase mailing lists and JIRAs and find any instance where we were not the model of a meritocratic and consensus driven community, or any instance where a committer has ever been aggrieved by our practices, and especially where I as chair have tried to exert

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development. I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it. Instead I will add a new point. 'trunk/master for product development' is not the only development

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Nov 25, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > 1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they aren’t)? I don’t, and I did not infer that. > 2. What makes you think that code reviews after the commit are any less > thorough than reviews

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development. > > I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it. > I read your

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > 1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they > aren’t)? > They aren't. But some are. And catching them in code review is cheaper than catching them when a user hits them. Additionally,

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) — Hitesh On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I have to completely disagree and find your assertion vaguely offensive. > On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: >> ... >> >> and inherited the RTC ethic from our parent community.

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

That is pretty normal operation in both styles of workflow. My concern is with trunk/master. Is a committer trusted enough to make changes directly? If all meaningful changes (ie. changing APIs and algorithms, not just fixing typos w/o review) are not trusted, and require review/permission, then

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > That is pretty normal operation in both styles of workflow. My concern is > with trunk/master. As far as I know, that condition was unclear... You seemed to imply that RTC *anyplace* was harmful or all about control. Both

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >... > > and inherited the RTC ethic from our parent community. I did recently test > the state of consensus on RTC vs CTR there and it still holds. I think this > model makes sense for HBase, which is a mature (read:

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I think this is a distraction. You said it best the other day: RTC implies the need for "permission" before making a change to the codebase. Committers are not trusted to make a judgement on whether a change should be made. CTR trusts committers to use their judgement. RTC distrusts committers,

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> AIUI, there’s two ways to go about RTC which is easier in Git: >> > > That's not what Cos said. He said using Git does not lead to RTC. > > If RTC has been chosen, then you're right: Git makes it easier [than svn]. > But

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen > somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes back to > control. Always. Strongly disagree. If you say 'every', all it takes is one

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen > > somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes back

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Some setups that people call RTC are actually CTR in your nomenclature, so we could be talking cross-purposes. That's all I'm trying to avoid. E.g. Lucene - everything happens in JIRA first (upload patch, wait for review), but once that has happened, you are free to commit away. So strictly, it is

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Boo hoo. Todd said it wasn't about control, and then a few days later said he was forcing people into doing reviews. So yeah: in his case, it *is* about control. Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) — Hitesh On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hi all, > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is > pasted below and also available on

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

[X] +1, accept Impala into the Incubator (Binding) Jarcec > On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I see some are trying to spread quite some FUD. Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Rob On 24/11/2015 19:32, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: >Hi all, > >Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like >to >call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is >pasted below and also

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

AIUI, there’s two ways to go about RTC which is easier in Git: 1) Working in feature/bug fix branches. Assuming RTC only applies to the main branch, changes are done in separate branches where commits do not require review. The feature/bug fix branch is then only merged back in after it had a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Tom White wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Tom > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson > wrote: > > Hi - > > > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's > been > >

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Tom On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like to

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Tom On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hi all, > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is > pasted below and also available on the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (non-binding) Amol On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Tom White wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Tom > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson > wrote: > > Hi - > > > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's > been

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (non-binding) Amol On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like > to > > call a VOTE on

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hi all, > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is > pasted below and also available on the wiki at: >

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like to call a VOTE on that

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

Since the contributors were employed at Cloudera, they probably signed an invention assignment. That means Cloudera can sign an SGA. On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 11/23/15,