Re: a discussion of dev process

[Hyunsik Choi <hy...@apache.org>]

Reviewboard has been available!
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6084

Now, you can submit your patch to reviewboard.
https://reviews.apache.org/groups/Tajo/


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Eli Reisman <ap...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree rb is silly for small patches
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hey Henry,
> >
> > Yep agreed. Assume that's the case I would say unless someone
> > objects :)
> >
> > In which case, talk and communicate, yadda, yadda, which you
> > already know.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 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
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: "dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org" <dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:00 PM
> > To: "dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org" <de...@tajo.incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: a discussion of dev process
> >
> > >Ah no, I meant that when someone submit a  patch he or she shouldn't
> > >required to create rb entry. It should be used as reccomended way to
> > >submit
> > >patch to help review
> > >
> > >- Henry
> > >
> > >On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey Henry,
> > >>
> > >> I don't understand your comment -- isn't Review Board useless without
> > >> a patch?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> 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 <javascript:;>
> > >> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> Reply-To: "dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>" <
> > >> dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > >> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:07 PM
> > >> To: "dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>" <
> > >> dev@tajo.incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > >> Subject: Re: a discussion of dev process
> > >>
> > >> >+1 for it as long as patches are not required to create reviewboard
> > >>entry.
> > >> >It should be used as tool to help review large patches such as new
> > >> >features
> > >> >or refactor some code.
> > >> >
> > >> >- Henry
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Hyunsik Choi <hy...@apache.org>
> > >>wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I've requested the reviewboard. As we've been doing so far, we can
> > >>use
> > >> >>jira
> > >> >> in order to share the patch and review it. In addition, we will be
> > >>able
> > >> >>to
> > >> >> use reviewboard.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6084
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - hyunsik
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Hyunsik Choi <hy...@apache.org>
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi Guys,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Actually, I agree with Mattmann in that not all patches need to
> be
> > >> >> > reviewed. Also, I agree with Jakob in that we should avoid the
> > >> >>problems
> > >> >> > caused by unexpected commits.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > How about this? Basically, we use RTC with only +1 vote passing
> > >>before
> > >> >> > merging a patch to master branch (i.e., trunk in svn term). Also,
> > >>some
> > >> >> > cases (e.g., trivial changes and site updates) do not require +1.
> > >> >>This is
> > >> >> > very simple. This approach will let us to avoid the significant
> > >> >>problem
> > >> >> > caused by unexpected commits, while it will mitigate the stress
> of
> > >> >>heavy
> > >> >> > process. Of course, each committer by itself has to determine
> > >>whether
> > >> >>a
> > >> >> > patch is trivial or not. Since the committers will have the
> > >>capability
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > this, it may be not problem.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Also, I think that three steps (creating a branch,  working, and
> > >> >>merging
> > >> >> > the patch to master with consensus) suggested by Chris are very
> > >>cool.
> > >> >>We
> > >> >> > can use this approach for some works. This approach will be also
> a
> > >> >> > convenient way to share on-going patches. In addition, this
> > >>approach
> > >> >>can
> > >> >> > encourage two or more committers to collaborate on the same work.
> > >>In
> > >> >>some
> > >> >> > cases, it can make some synergy.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > Hyunsik
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> > >> >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Hi Guys,
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> It's up to you. I've never been a fan of project bylaws.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> To me they "anticipate" things needing clarifying whereas to me,
> > >> >> >> the discussions on list, the meetings at ApacheCon, the day to
> day
> > >> >> >> interactions that occur however, are much more socially fun, and
> > >> >> >> wholly enjoyable to participate in then:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> "According to bylaw G, you are an X committer, in a year, you
> can
> > >> >> become a
> > >> >> >> PMC member, etc."
> > >> >> >> "Per the bylaws, which are different than the general Apache
> > >> >>guidelines,
> > >> >> >> VOTEs are required
> > >> >> >> to have a x/4 majority, except for Tuesday, on which" blah blah
> > >>blah
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Anyone object to simply stating those above along with social
> > >>graces,
> > >> >> >> and communication, are the bylaws for the project?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> S
> >
> >
>