You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mrunit.apache.org by Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com> on 2011/03/29 04:04:50 UTC
commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Hey folks,
It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to get
a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being a
"committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
How would we like to go about this here?
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
Thanks,
- Aaron
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Let's just commit -- we are small enough and agile enough that let's just open up the flood gates.
We should let people chime in and respect them when they do should they have an objection, but I'm fine with just committing. It's worked for me on all my other projects (Nutch, Tika, Lucene, OODT, SIS, Gora, Lucy)...
Cheers,
Chris
On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Aaron Kimball wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to get
> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being a
> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>
> How would we like to go about this here?
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> - Aaron
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Guys,
I think it's good to try and have at least a 1:N mapping from JIRAs to commits, but not necessarily vice versa.
Cheers,
Chris
On Mar 29, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Aaron Kimball wrote:
> related: does there still need to be a 1:1 mapping from commits to JIRAs?
> - Aaron
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Eric Sammer <es...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a strong opinion and I think for something like mrunit it
>> makes sense to default to commit. I like review first for larger commits,
>> but I'm happy to leave it to the individual's best judgement.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to
>>> get
>>> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
>>> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being
>>> a
>>> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>>>
>>> How would we like to go about this here?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Aaron
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Sammer
>> twitter: esammer
>> data: www.cloudera.com
>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
One other plus for JIRA - it explicitly captures the intent (or not)
to submit something as apache licensed, from the "attach file/patch"
JIRA UI:
-----
Contributions intended for inclusion in ASF products (eg. patches,
code) must be licensed to ASF under the terms of the Apache License.
Other attachments (eg. log dumps, test cases) need not be.
Attachment not intended for inclusion
Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per the Apache License ยง5)
Patrick
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> related: does there still need to be a 1:1 mapping from commits to JIRAs?
>
> I'm not sure if it's an Apache requirement (does anyone know for
> sure?). The committer guide doesn't talk about it afaict:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>
> IMO it's a good best practice, I've found that having the patch in
> JIRA helps later on - given that JIRA has a decent interface which
> includes search. Chris may have more insight, I believe other project
> (other than hadoop related which I'm familiar with) seem to rely more
> on mailing list than jira.
>
> CTR sounds fine to me, but I'd encourage you to document stuff like
> this (wiki "how to contribute" is probably a good place to start...)
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
>
> Patrick
>
>
>> - Aaron
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Eric Sammer <es...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion and I think for something like mrunit it
>>> makes sense to default to commit. I like review first for larger commits,
>>> but I'm happy to leave it to the individual's best judgement.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to
>>>> get
>>>> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
>>>> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being
>>>> a
>>>> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>>>>
>>>> How would we like to go about this here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Aaron
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Sammer
>>> twitter: esammer
>>> data: www.cloudera.com
>>>
>>
>
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> related: does there still need to be a 1:1 mapping from commits to JIRAs?
I'm not sure if it's an Apache requirement (does anyone know for
sure?). The committer guide doesn't talk about it afaict:
http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
IMO it's a good best practice, I've found that having the patch in
JIRA helps later on - given that JIRA has a decent interface which
includes search. Chris may have more insight, I believe other project
(other than hadoop related which I'm familiar with) seem to rely more
on mailing list than jira.
CTR sounds fine to me, but I'd encourage you to document stuff like
this (wiki "how to contribute" is probably a good place to start...)
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
Patrick
> - Aaron
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Eric Sammer <es...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a strong opinion and I think for something like mrunit it
>> makes sense to default to commit. I like review first for larger commits,
>> but I'm happy to leave it to the individual's best judgement.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to
>>> get
>>> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
>>> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being
>>> a
>>> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>>>
>>> How would we like to go about this here?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Aaron
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Sammer
>> twitter: esammer
>> data: www.cloudera.com
>>
>
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>.
related: does there still need to be a 1:1 mapping from commits to JIRAs?
- Aaron
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Eric Sammer <es...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion and I think for something like mrunit it
> makes sense to default to commit. I like review first for larger commits,
> but I'm happy to leave it to the individual's best judgement.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to
>> get
>> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
>> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being
>> a
>> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>>
>> How would we like to go about this here?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Aaron
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Sammer
> twitter: esammer
> data: www.cloudera.com
>
Re: commit-then-review or review-then-commit?
Posted by Eric Sammer <es...@cloudera.com>.
I don't have a strong opinion and I think for something like mrunit it makes
sense to default to commit. I like review first for larger commits, but I'm
happy to leave it to the individual's best judgement.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Aaron Kimball <ak...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> It was my understanding that in the Hadoop community, all patches had to
> get
> a +1 on the review before being committed, even those from long-time
> committers on the project. The new committer guide [1] suggests that being
> a
> "committer" on a project implies that you should commit first.
>
> How would we like to go about this here?
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> - Aaron
>
--
Eric Sammer
twitter: esammer
data: www.cloudera.com