Re: Impala commit policy

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > In my opinion the correct approach is to identify the parts of the code that > a) > seem to be most susceptible to bugs, b) are hard to understand well, or c) > where > simple changes can have huge impacts on

Re: Impala commit policy

On 2 December 2015 at 23:04, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > > Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or > > Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted > to >

Re: Impala commit policy

Virtually any project you look at is going to have portions that are fairly complex and portions that are pretty straightforward. In my opinion the correct approach is to identify the parts of the code that a) seem to be most susceptible to bugs, b) are hard to understand well, or c) where

Re: Impala commit policy

Nice +1 =) On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Tom White wrote: > The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed > (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about > CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a > binary

Re: Impala commit policy

I agree that this is something the Impala community will want to discuss fairly early on in incubation - along with a lot of other project procedural stuff as we adjust or rethink our workflows to be Apache-Way compatible. Until we have that discussion, I'd expect Impala will continue along RTC

Re: Impala commit policy

+1 to this as well. Whether the community changes its mind or not is irrelevant in my opinion. What is important is it gets to choose for itself and possibly revisits regularly as it sees fit. This discussion should be encouraged and people who want to promote the merits of one approach or another

Re: Impala commit policy

I am not sure what "start with no explicit commit policy" even means. Will there be no commits, until the discussion on the subject happens? How code changes will be going into the source base? Cos On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:01AM, Tom White wrote: > The vote to accept Impala into the incubator

Re: Impala commit policy

What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects for CTR, we might say "what can we do to limit the risk that RTC inhibits community

Re: Impala commit policy

Yeah, this is what I meant earlier. Leaving out a commit policy changes nothing. The same people who put together the proposal will be the same set as those discussing it as a podling, and they will reach the same conclusion. If the PPMC doubles in size, with fresh faces, then a real discussion

Re: Impala commit policy

Yeup! On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a > particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might > be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects

Re: Impala commit policy

“No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t build, whether they run the test suite before committing. This policy is the bare

Re: Impala commit policy

Tom White wrote: The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different communities have

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > “No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. > It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review > the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t > build,

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or > Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to > stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to >

Re: Impala commit policy

Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to determine their own processes and cultures. Julian > On Dec 2, 2015, at 6:42

Impala commit policy

The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different communities have different commit

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Tom White wrote: > ...I think Julian Hyde's suggestion that the Impala podling start with no > explicit commit policy is a good one. Incubation should be used as a > time to work out what works best for a project Big +1 -Bertrand

Re: Impala commit policy

On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:01, Tom White > wrote: The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a