You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bigtop.apache.org by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/17 21:21:27 UTC
petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Hi bigtop.
Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
--
jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
sure!
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi bigtop.
>
> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
>
> --
> jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
thats a good fallback if folks are against outsider +1 being
sufficient. I'll bump the vote thread on this to see if thats really
the case.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Mark Grover <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here's another option that I have seen to have worked well in other
> projects.
>
> We create a separate branch for development of BigPetStore and Rj can be a
> branch committer on that without being a committer on the broader project.
> So, you guys can quickly iterate over BigPetStore in that branch. Once that
> branch is ready to be merged into the main master branch, you'd require a
> regular +1 from one of the committers.
>
> The benefits of this approach is that you can quickly iterate on the
> development without having to wait for a formal committer +1. The downside
> is that when merging back the change may be a substantial so merge can be
> non-trivial.
>
> I would personally be ok with such an approach here.
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being
> a
> > commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of
> > to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
> >
> > So back on topic... :)
> >
> > 2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove
> any
> > barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so,
> possibly
> > make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding new
> > features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that
> > interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig
> fixes
> > for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
> >
> > > On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm
> > focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others
> > such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the
> core
> > code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents...
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Why not make RJ a commiter?
> > >>
> > >> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
> > >> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
> > >> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
> > >>
> > >> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may
> require
> > some changes because of some issues related to 2/
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Bruno
> > >>
> > >>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
> > >>> Hi bigtop.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's
> > them ?
> > >>
> >
>
--
jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
I have expressed my detailed opinion on the [VOTE] thread about this. One more
thing I'd like to add here.
In general, I like the idea of branch-committers, but I don't see this as a
very helpful mechanism for us, considering the agility of Bigtop. It might be
a good idea for, say, Hadoop, where it is getting almost impossible to commit
anything as _any_ change is being considered as a potentially harmful. Which
is not surprise, considering how entangled, rigid, and fragile the Hadoop code
is.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:25PM, Mark Grover wrote:
> Here's another option that I have seen to have worked well in other
> projects.
>
> We create a separate branch for development of BigPetStore and Rj can be a
> branch committer on that without being a committer on the broader project.
> So, you guys can quickly iterate over BigPetStore in that branch. Once that
> branch is ready to be merged into the main master branch, you'd require a
> regular +1 from one of the committers.
>
> The benefits of this approach is that you can quickly iterate on the
> development without having to wait for a formal committer +1. The downside
> is that when merging back the change may be a substantial so merge can be
> non-trivial.
>
> I would personally be ok with such an approach here.
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being a
> > commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of
> > to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
> >
> > So back on topic... :)
> >
> > 2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove any
> > barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so, possibly
> > make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding new
> > features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that
> > interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig fixes
> > for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
> >
> > > On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm
> > focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others
> > such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core
> > code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents...
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Why not make RJ a commiter?
> > >>
> > >> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
> > >> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
> > >> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
> > >>
> > >> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require
> > some changes because of some issues related to 2/
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Bruno
> > >>
> > >>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
> > >>> Hi bigtop.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's
> > them ?
> > >>
> >
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Mark Grover <ma...@apache.org>.
Here's another option that I have seen to have worked well in other
projects.
We create a separate branch for development of BigPetStore and Rj can be a
branch committer on that without being a committer on the broader project.
So, you guys can quickly iterate over BigPetStore in that branch. Once that
branch is ready to be merged into the main master branch, you'd require a
regular +1 from one of the committers.
The benefits of this approach is that you can quickly iterate on the
development without having to wait for a formal committer +1. The downside
is that when merging back the change may be a substantial so merge can be
non-trivial.
I would personally be ok with such an approach here.
Mark
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being a
> commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of
> to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
>
> So back on topic... :)
>
> 2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove any
> barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so, possibly
> make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding new
> features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that
> interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig fixes
> for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
>
> > On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm
> focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others
> such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core
> code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
> >
> > Just my two cents...
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Why not make RJ a commiter?
> >>
> >> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
> >> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
> >> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
> >>
> >> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require
> some changes because of some issues related to 2/
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bruno
> >>
> >>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
> >>> Hi bigtop.
> >>>
> >>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's
> them ?
> >>
>
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks bruno,
I see what you mean. I think there has been alot of thought on this.
I'm sure commitership will naturally evolve in due time given RJ's hard
work on the data generator, as it has for other contributors.
Till then, we don't need special +1 rights or anything.
Onwards and upwards w/ lambda pet store !
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
>
> I would have to look at RJ's detailed contributions to make a clear
> assessment for his case. This was more of an open question.
>
> But in any case, I don't see the ability to contribute to all parts of
> Apache Bigtop as a requirement to be a committer.
> See https://community.apache.org/contributors/
>
> Therefore, if someone was to focus on BigPetStore only (or any other part,
> be it documentation, packages, VMs, puppet, etc.) and provides some
> valuable contributions or insight, then making that person a committer
> would not be diluting committership. It would instead acknowledge some
> valuable insights and contributions!
> After all, Apache Bigtop is a community effort! (even though I haven't had
> much time to spend on it :/ )
> But I am not pushing for RJ to be a committer if it is not appropriate.
> Again, I would have to look at his past contributions.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruno
>
>
> On 12/22/2014 06:47 AM, Jay Vyas wrote:
>
>> 1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being
>> a commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of
>> to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
>>
>> So back on topic... :)
>>
>> 2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove
>> any barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so,
>> possibly make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding
>> new features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that
>> interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig fixes
>> for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm
>>> focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others
>>> such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core
>>> code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
>>>
>>> Just my two cents...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not make RJ a commiter?
>>>>
>>>> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
>>>> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
>>>> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
>>>>
>>>> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require
>>>> some changes because of some issues related to 2/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
>>>>> Hi bigtop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's
>>>>> them ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>
--
jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net>.
I would have to look at RJ's detailed contributions to make a clear
assessment for his case. This was more of an open question.
But in any case, I don't see the ability to contribute to all parts of
Apache Bigtop as a requirement to be a committer.
See https://community.apache.org/contributors/
Therefore, if someone was to focus on BigPetStore only (or any other
part, be it documentation, packages, VMs, puppet, etc.) and provides
some valuable contributions or insight, then making that person a
committer would not be diluting committership. It would instead
acknowledge some valuable insights and contributions!
After all, Apache Bigtop is a community effort! (even though I haven't
had much time to spend on it :/ )
But I am not pushing for RJ to be a committer if it is not appropriate.
Again, I would have to look at his past contributions.
Thanks,
Bruno
On 12/22/2014 06:47 AM, Jay Vyas wrote:
> 1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being a commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
>
> So back on topic... :)
>
> 2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove any barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so, possibly make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding new features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig fixes for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
>>
>> Just my two cents...
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not make RJ a commiter?
>>>
>>> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
>>> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
>>> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
>>>
>>> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require some changes because of some issues related to 2/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
>>>> Hi bigtop.
>>>>
>>>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
1) I agree with Rj on that, we don't need to change the rules for being a commiter - it's a big responsibility and imo a achievement to be proud of to be a commiter on bigtop, and I don't think we need to dilute that.
So back on topic... :)
2) Given that we are quite small at the moment, we just need to remove any barriers to getting good solid updates into bigtop, and doing so, possibly make it easier for existing very busy commiters to focus on adding new features, rather than reviewing patches which they aren't really that interested in... Example: I'd rather trust Debian expert review pig fixes for Ubuntu packaging the review it myself, wether I'm a commiter or not.
> On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:18 AM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
>
> Just my two cents...
>
>
>> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why not make RJ a commiter?
>>
>> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
>> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
>> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
>>
>> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require some changes because of some issues related to 2/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bruno
>>
>>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
>>> Hi bigtop.
>>>
>>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
>>
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com>.
I don't think know that my work meets the necessary requirements. I'm focused primarily on BigPetStore, not the larger code base, while others such as Evan have contributed more than I have and more broadly to the core code base than I have yet they aren't committers yet.
Just my two cents...
> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net> wrote:
>
> Why not make RJ a commiter?
>
> From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
> 1/ Is the intended change correct.
> 2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
>
> A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require some changes because of some issues related to 2/
>
> Thanks,
> Bruno
>
>> On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
>> Hi bigtop.
>>
>> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
>
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Bruno Mahé <br...@bmahe.net>.
Why not make RJ a commiter?
From my understanding a review has at least 2 parts:
1/ Is the intended change correct.
2/ Does this change fit into the project's standards, culture.
A change may perfectly be correct from a 1/ perspective but may require
some changes because of some issues related to 2/
Thanks,
Bruno
On 12/17/2014 12:21 PM, jay vyas wrote:
> Hi bigtop.
>
> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
>
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
sure ! Makes sense. I will make a more formal email proposal
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong guys - it's great to have non-committers reviewing the
> patches of committers. And it is perhaps ok to make such a +1 to be
> sufficient. But thus far we had one set of rules; and if we want to change
> them - let's do it with open face via proper discussions, etc.
>
> Does it make sense?
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:04AM, Jay Vyas wrote:
> > Haha ok here is what happened....
> >
> > - Normally, if "joe the commiter" writes a patch, "bob the non-commiter"
> > +1 is *not* sufficent to commit.
> >
> > - I was asking if ok to make an exception to that rule, and initially i
> think you were ok with it...
> >
> > - So I broke that rule on the bigtop-1273 commit, based on your email...
> >
> > - But then after cos said he's not quite so sure it's a good rule to
> subvert, which is understandable....
> >
> > Summary: So I'll for now continue getting commiter +1s for my patches :)
> >
> > Not a problem :)... Just thought I'd pose the question.
> >
> > > On Dec 17, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, jay vyas <
> jayunit100.apache@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> no prob @cos...
> > >> okay , i commited the last jira w/ rj's +1...
> > >> but from now on, ill go back to wait on commiter +1's
> > >
> > > Jay, you +1ed it, right. So why is there a problem?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
>
--
jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Don't get me wrong guys - it's great to have non-committers reviewing the
patches of committers. And it is perhaps ok to make such a +1 to be
sufficient. But thus far we had one set of rules; and if we want to change
them - let's do it with open face via proper discussions, etc.
Does it make sense?
Cos
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:04AM, Jay Vyas wrote:
> Haha ok here is what happened....
>
> - Normally, if "joe the commiter" writes a patch, "bob the non-commiter"
> +1 is *not* sufficent to commit.
>
> - I was asking if ok to make an exception to that rule, and initially i think you were ok with it...
>
> - So I broke that rule on the bigtop-1273 commit, based on your email...
>
> - But then after cos said he's not quite so sure it's a good rule to subvert, which is understandable....
>
> Summary: So I'll for now continue getting commiter +1s for my patches :)
>
> Not a problem :)... Just thought I'd pose the question.
>
> > On Dec 17, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> no prob @cos...
> >> okay , i commited the last jira w/ rj's +1...
> >> but from now on, ill go back to wait on commiter +1's
> >
> > Jay, you +1ed it, right. So why is there a problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
Haha ok here is what happened....
- Normally, if "joe the commiter" writes a patch, "bob the non-commiter"
+1 is *not* sufficent to commit.
- I was asking if ok to make an exception to that rule, and initially i think you were ok with it...
- So I broke that rule on the bigtop-1273 commit, based on your email...
- But then after cos said he's not quite so sure it's a good rule to subvert, which is understandable....
Summary: So I'll for now continue getting commiter +1s for my patches :)
Not a problem :)... Just thought I'd pose the question.
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> no prob @cos...
>> okay , i commited the last jira w/ rj's +1...
>> but from now on, ill go back to wait on commiter +1's
>
> Jay, you +1ed it, right. So why is there a problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no prob @cos...
> okay , i commited the last jira w/ rj's +1...
> but from now on, ill go back to wait on commiter +1's
Jay, you +1ed it, right. So why is there a problem?
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
no prob @cos...
okay , i commited the last jira w/ rj's +1...
but from now on, ill go back to wait on commiter +1's
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> So far commits were requiring a committer +1. I don't see why that needs
> to be
> changed.
>
> Thoughts?
> Cos
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:21PM, jay vyas wrote:
> > Hi bigtop.
> >
> > Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them
> ?
> > --
> > jay vyas
>
--
jay vyas
Re: petstore commits : +1's from Rnowling ok ?
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
So far commits were requiring a committer +1. I don't see why that needs to be
changed.
Thoughts?
Cos
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:21PM, jay vyas wrote:
> Hi bigtop.
>
> Is it okay for us to commit bigtop-bigpetstore/ updates if RJ +1's them ?
> --
> jay vyas