More thoughts on the 24 hour wait : Changing the by-law to a 24 hr wait from first time patch is marked as available (or making this a guidance instead of by-law), is likely to nudge committers to review patches sooner. Right now, the clock starts ticking for a commit when another committer has +1'd. With the change the clock starts ticking when patch is available (ie, controlled by contributor). I think this 'small' change will improver things for better in a bigger way.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > After thinking some more about it, I am not sure if we need to have a > hard and fast rule of 24 hours before commit. I think we should let > committers make a call on if this is a trivial, safe and non > controversial change and commit it in less than 24 hours in such > cases. In case of larger changes, waiting for couple of days for > feedback makes sense. > If a committer feel that a patch shouldn't have gone in (because of > technical issues or it went it too soon), they should be able to -1 it > and revert the patch, until further review is done. > > In other words, I think this can be a guidance instead of a law in the > by-laws. What do others in hive community think about this ? > > This has been working well in case of other apache hadoop related projects. > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Shelukhin > <ser...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> I actually have a patch out on a jira that says it will be committed in 24 >> hours from long ago ;) >> >> Is 24h rule is needed at all? In other projects, I've seen patches simply >> reverted by author (or someone else). It's a rare occurrence, and it should >> be possible to revert a patch if someone -1s it after commit, esp. within >> the same 24 hours when not many other changes are in. >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Ashutosh that the 24 hour waiting period after +1 is >>> cumbersome, I have also forgotten to commit patches after +1, >>> resulting in patches going stale. >>> >>> But I think 24 hours wait between creation of jira and patch commit is >>> not very useful, as the thing to be examined is the patch and not the >>> jira summary/description. >>> I think having a waiting period of 24 hours between a jira being made >>> 'patch available' and committing is better and sufficient. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Proposed changes look good to me, both suggested by Carl and Thejas. >>> > Another one I would like to add for consideration is: 24 hour rule >>> > between >>> > +1 and commit. Since this exists only in Hive (no other apache project >>> > which I am aware of) this surprises new contributors. More importantly, >>> > I >>> > have seen multiple cases where patch didn't get committed because >>> > committer >>> > after +1 forgot to commit after 24 hours have passed. I propose to >>> > modify >>> > that one such that there must be 24 hour duration between creation of >>> > jira >>> > and patch commit, that will ensure that there is sufficient time for >>> > folks >>> > to see changes which are happening on trunk. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ashutosh >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> The changes look good to me. >>> >> Only concern I have is with the 7 days for release candidate voting. >>> >> Based on my experience with releases, it often takes few cycles to get >>> >> the candidate out, and people tend to vote closer to the end of the >>> >> voting period. This can mean that it takes several weeks to get a >>> >> release out. But this will not be so much of a problem as long as >>> >> people don't wait for end of the voting period to vote, or if they >>> >> look at the candidate branch even before the release candidate is out. >>> >> >>> >> Should we also include a provision for branch merges ? I think we >>> >> should have a longer voting period for branch merges (3 days instead >>> >> of 1?) and require 3 +1s (this part is also in the hadoop by-law ) . >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Carl Steinbach <c...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >> > I think we should make several changes to the Apache Hive Project >>> >> > Bylaws. >>> >> > The proposed changes are available for review here: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38568856 >>> >> > >>> >> > Most of the changes were directly inspired by provisions found in the >>> >> Apache >>> >> > Hadoop Project Bylaws. >>> >> > >>> >> > Summary of proposed changes: >>> >> > >>> >> > * Add provisions for branch committers and speculative branches. >>> >> > >>> >> > * Define the responsibilities of a release manager. >>> >> > >>> >> > * PMC Chairs serve for one year and are elected by the PMC using >>> >> > Single >>> >> > Transferable Vote (STV) voting. >>> >> > >>> >> > * With the exception of code change votes, the minimum length of all >>> >> voting >>> >> > periods is extended to seven days. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks. >>> >> > >>> >> > Carl >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>> >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or >>> >> entity to >>> >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >>> >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the >>> >> reader >>> >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >>> >> that >>> >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >>> >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >>> >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender >>> >> immediately >>> >> and delete it from your system. Thank You. >>> >> >>> >>> -- >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity >>> to >>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader >>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >>> that >>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender >>> immediately >>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. >> >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of >> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it >> from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
