You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whirr.apache.org by Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/06 18:38:50 UTC
[DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Hi guys,
I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
Commit-Then-Review
for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require code
review.
The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I have
noticed
a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and this
slows
down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr and I
think we
should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
What do you think?
-- Andrei Savu
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com>.
Checkout couchdb, the pilot program, for the limitations.
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Git_At_Apache_Guide
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-868
I'm working with S4 (incubator) to use git.
Notice that you don't get away from patches/jira with this.
Patrick
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also think there are other ways to collaborate more efficiently. This
> ancient patch thing we do is the real burden, much moreso than actually
> reviewing code. We should follow deltacloud who've asked to be able to use
> git.
>
> My 2p
> -A
> On Dec 7, 2011 4:26 PM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good. Thanks Andrei!
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> what do you think of my proposal re dropping components that don't
>> >> have support and have unresolved issues for a rel? Specifically around
>> >> making it possible to do a new rel.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sounds reasonable and I am sure we are going to be forced to do that as
>> we
>> > add
>> > more services but I think we can avoid it for this release. I am now
>> > working on
>> > getting Cassandra integration tests to pass.
>> >
>> > I think that if we fail to fix integration tests by Monday we should cut
>> > the branch
>> > and make the release (we've just fixed the blockers); I suppose very few
>> > users are
>> > affected by this (based on the discussions we have on the email list).
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com>.
I also think there are other ways to collaborate more efficiently. This
ancient patch thing we do is the real burden, much moreso than actually
reviewing code. We should follow deltacloud who've asked to be able to use
git.
My 2p
-A
On Dec 7, 2011 4:26 PM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Sounds good. Thanks Andrei!
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> what do you think of my proposal re dropping components that don't
> >> have support and have unresolved issues for a rel? Specifically around
> >> making it possible to do a new rel.
> >>
> >
> > Sounds reasonable and I am sure we are going to be forced to do that as
> we
> > add
> > more services but I think we can avoid it for this release. I am now
> > working on
> > getting Cassandra integration tests to pass.
> >
> > I think that if we fail to fix integration tests by Monday we should cut
> > the branch
> > and make the release (we've just fixed the blockers); I suppose very few
> > users are
> > affected by this (based on the discussions we have on the email list).
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com>.
Sounds good. Thanks Andrei!
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> what do you think of my proposal re dropping components that don't
>> have support and have unresolved issues for a rel? Specifically around
>> making it possible to do a new rel.
>>
>
> Sounds reasonable and I am sure we are going to be forced to do that as we
> add
> more services but I think we can avoid it for this release. I am now
> working on
> getting Cassandra integration tests to pass.
>
> I think that if we fail to fix integration tests by Monday we should cut
> the branch
> and make the release (we've just fixed the blockers); I suppose very few
> users are
> affected by this (based on the discussions we have on the email list).
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> what do you think of my proposal re dropping components that don't
> have support and have unresolved issues for a rel? Specifically around
> making it possible to do a new rel.
>
Sounds reasonable and I am sure we are going to be forced to do that as we
add
more services but I think we can avoid it for this release. I am now
working on
getting Cassandra integration tests to pass.
I think that if we fail to fix integration tests by Monday we should cut
the branch
and make the release (we've just fixed the blockers); I suppose very few
users are
affected by this (based on the discussions we have on the email list).
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com>.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Regardless, it's still a bad idea imo (in this context, not in general).
>
>
> Ok. Let's postpone this discussion. From my point of view the import thing
> is to
> release 0.7.0 before Xmas.
what do you think of my proposal re dropping components that don't
have support and have unresolved issues for a rel? Specifically around
making it possible to do a new rel.
Patrick
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Regardless, it's still a bad idea imo (in this context, not in general).
Ok. Let's postpone this discussion. From my point of view the import thing
is to
release 0.7.0 before Xmas.
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com>.
I hear you and understand what you're getting at. Also understand I've
not been helpful in this regard myself of late.
Regardless, it's still a bad idea imo (in this context, not in general).
I notice from your spreadsheet that most stuff is green with a couple
reds. I've found that setting a date and reaching out the the people
interested in the functionality is a useful way to make progress. You
might also consider making a release that has some parts of the matrix
in red and just calling that out in the release documentation.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Patrick I agree 100% but some code is better than no code. I feel like at
> least for
> a while I have been the only one constantly watching the email list and
> doing
> some work on the open issues.
>
> I don't like the fact that we are delaying this release so much and most of
> the
> emails I write on the list get no replies from the rest of the core dev
> team.
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively
>> reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight.
>> That's an anti-pattern.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
>> > Commit-Then-Review
>> > for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require
>> code
>> > review.
>> >
>> > The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I
>> have
>> > noticed
>> > a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and
>> this
>> > slows
>> > down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr
>> and I
>> > think we
>> > should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>> >
>> > We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > -- Andrei Savu
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Andrei Savu <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
Paul I hope so! I'm looking forward to a strong start in 2012 :)
On Dec 6, 2011 10:20 PM, "Paul Baclace" <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Patrick on this. The real issue is the holiday season.
>
>
> Paul
>
> On 20111206 11:56 , Andrei Savu wrote:
>
>> Patrick I agree 100% but some code is better than no code. I feel like at
>> least for
>> a while I have been the only one constantly watching the email list and
>> doing
>> some work on the open issues.
>>
>> I don't like the fact that we are delaying this release so much and most
>> of
>> the
>> emails I write on the list get no replies from the rest of the core dev
>> team.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Patrick Hunt<ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively
>>> reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight.
>>> That's an anti-pattern.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu<sa...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
>>>> Commit-Then-Review
>>>> for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require
>>>>
>>> code
>>>
>>>> review.
>>>>
>>>> The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I
>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>> noticed
>>>> a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and
>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>> slows
>>>> down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr
>>>>
>>> and I
>>>
>>>> think we
>>>> should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>>>>
>>>> We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> -- Andrei Savu
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Paul Baclace <pa...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Patrick on this. The real issue is the holiday season.
Paul
On 20111206 11:56 , Andrei Savu wrote:
> Patrick I agree 100% but some code is better than no code. I feel like at
> least for
> a while I have been the only one constantly watching the email list and
> doing
> some work on the open issues.
>
> I don't like the fact that we are delaying this release so much and most of
> the
> emails I write on the list get no replies from the rest of the core dev
> team.
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Patrick Hunt<ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively
>> reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight.
>> That's an anti-pattern.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu<sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
>>> Commit-Then-Review
>>> for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require
>> code
>>> review.
>>>
>>> The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I
>> have
>>> noticed
>>> a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and
>> this
>>> slows
>>> down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr
>> and I
>>> think we
>>> should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>>>
>>> We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -- Andrei Savu
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>.
Patrick I agree 100% but some code is better than no code. I feel like at
least for
a while I have been the only one constantly watching the email list and
doing
some work on the open issues.
I don't like the fact that we are delaying this release so much and most of
the
emails I write on the list get no replies from the rest of the core dev
team.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively
> reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight.
> That's an anti-pattern.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
> > Commit-Then-Review
> > for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require
> code
> > review.
> >
> > The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I
> have
> > noticed
> > a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and
> this
> > slows
> > down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr
> and I
> > think we
> > should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
> >
> > We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -- Andrei Savu
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com>.
My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively
reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight.
That's an anti-pattern.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
> Commit-Then-Review
> for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require code
> review.
>
> The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I have
> noticed
> a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and this
> slows
> down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr and I
> think we
> should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>
> We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -- Andrei Savu
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by David Alves <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi
+1 on Andrei's suggestion.
Also my availability will increase quite a bit in the next couple of weeks, i'll try to put in some work.
Cheers
-david
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
> +1
>
> it makes sense for me.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 12/06/2011 06:38 PM, Andrei Savu wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
>> Commit-Then-Review
>> for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require code
>> review.
>>
>> The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I have
>> noticed
>> a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and this
>> slows
>> down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr and I
>> think we
>> should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>>
>> We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -- Andrei Savu
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Change: RTC to CTR
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Andrei,
+1
it makes sense for me.
Regards
JB
On 12/06/2011 06:38 PM, Andrei Savu wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to
> Commit-Then-Review
> for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require code
> review.
>
> The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I have
> noticed
> a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and this
> slows
> down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr and I
> think we
> should keep on developing things as fast as possible.
>
> We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -- Andrei Savu
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com