You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org> on 2013/12/18 20:52:39 UTC
HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
It's small and there for a while.
Thanks.
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
RC at EOM sounds good Andy,
St.Ack
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
>
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
>
> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
> beyond discussion.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > No
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
>> >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I gave +1 already
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > - Andy
>> >> >
>> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>> >> > (via Tom White)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
>
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
+1
Committers should use their good judgement. It should be possible to simply commit low risk bugfixes without additional +1's after a reasonable time.
Committers should be smart enough to garner more review/support when needed for larger changes.
We'll never come up with hard rules that are always appropriate.
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent:
Subject: Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around
enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring more
than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 and
commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
CTR for trivial changes.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
>
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
>
> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
> beyond discussion.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
> > >>
> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > - Andy
> > >> >
> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > >> > (via Tom White)
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> On your side Andrew, regarding 0.98, can you please commit on not taking
> any vacations for the next 12 months please? ;)
>
LOL. I absolutely can commit to that. I don't do vacations. I do
"work-cactions". It's a pathology of modern life that I have embraced. I
will only be absent if ill. I hope that is excusable...
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
My point is that it forces more eyes to look at what is done and might
allow (force) more discussions?
On your side Andrew, regarding 0.98, can you please commit on not taking
any vacations for the next 12 months please? ;)
2013/12/18 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> I don't see how more votes will increase the quality of design. Your
> participation in the community and providing of feedback will increase the
> quality of design, and code too if you volunteer time to do code review on
> JIRAs and reviews.apache.org.
>
> I can understand the motivation of adding friction. We already provide
> substantial friction as part of the normal Apache process of having Release
> Managers. If LarsH or Stack go away for a month, we probably won't have
> commits to 0.94 or 0.96 during that time. I'm not convinced we need more
> friction than this so I'm not in favor of the policy as it is currently
> written in the online manual. That said, I certainly have an open mind
> about this subject. Perhaps there is some evidence that more friction is
> warranted?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > Honestly I'm pretty fine with the policy described at
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> >
> > "Patches that fit within the scope of a single Apache HBase component
> > require, at least, a +1 by one of the component's owners before commit.
> If
> > owners are absent -- busy or otherwise -- two +1s by non-owners will
> > suffice. " that mean usually one +1 is enough, or sometime 2x +1.
> >
> > But I will not complain if I need just one +1 for this patch ;)
> >
> > I think having 2x +1 will increase the quality of the code/design.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/18 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >
> > > Also let me clarify something: A while back we discussed the Hadoop
> > policy
> > > of requiring 3 +1s for a branch merge. That sounds reasonable to me. I
> > > don't see this in the current online manual text.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone
> > and
> > > > unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> > > > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not
> around
> > > > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from
> the
> > > > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a
> volunteer
> > > > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring
> > > more
> > > > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not
> +1
> > > and
> > > > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal
> policy
> > of
> > > > CTR for trivial changes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > > >>
> > > >> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> > give
> > > >> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> > > progress
> > > >> beyond discussion.
> > > >>
> > > >> St.Ack
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > No
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > > >> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> > > >> écrit :
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > >> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks.
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > --
> > > >> > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > - Andy
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> -
> > > Piet
> > > >> > Hein
> > > >> > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Best regards,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > - Andy
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > Piet
> > > >> Hein
> > > >> > > (via Tom White)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Andy
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > > Hein
> > > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I don't see how more votes will increase the quality of design. Your
participation in the community and providing of feedback will increase the
quality of design, and code too if you volunteer time to do code review on
JIRAs and reviews.apache.org.
I can understand the motivation of adding friction. We already provide
substantial friction as part of the normal Apache process of having Release
Managers. If LarsH or Stack go away for a month, we probably won't have
commits to 0.94 or 0.96 during that time. I'm not convinced we need more
friction than this so I'm not in favor of the policy as it is currently
written in the online manual. That said, I certainly have an open mind
about this subject. Perhaps there is some evidence that more friction is
warranted?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> Honestly I'm pretty fine with the policy described at
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
>
> "Patches that fit within the scope of a single Apache HBase component
> require, at least, a +1 by one of the component's owners before commit. If
> owners are absent -- busy or otherwise -- two +1s by non-owners will
> suffice. " that mean usually one +1 is enough, or sometime 2x +1.
>
> But I will not complain if I need just one +1 for this patch ;)
>
> I think having 2x +1 will increase the quality of the code/design.
>
>
>
> 2013/12/18 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>
> > Also let me clarify something: A while back we discussed the Hadoop
> policy
> > of requiring 3 +1s for a branch merge. That sounds reasonable to me. I
> > don't see this in the current online manual text.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone
> and
> > > unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> > > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around
> > > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring
> > more
> > > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> > and
> > > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy
> of
> > > CTR for trivial changes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > >>
> > >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > >>
> > >> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> give
> > >> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> > progress
> > >> beyond discussion.
> > >>
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > No
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > >> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> > >> écrit :
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > >> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Thanks.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > --
> > >> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > - Andy
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > Piet
> > >> > Hein
> > >> > >> > (via Tom White)
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Andy
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > >> Hein
> > >> > > (via Tom White)
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > - Andy
> > >> >
> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > >> > (via Tom White)
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Honestly I'm pretty fine with the policy described at
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
"Patches that fit within the scope of a single Apache HBase component
require, at least, a +1 by one of the component's owners before commit. If
owners are absent -- busy or otherwise -- two +1s by non-owners will
suffice. " that mean usually one +1 is enough, or sometime 2x +1.
But I will not complain if I need just one +1 for this patch ;)
I think having 2x +1 will increase the quality of the code/design.
2013/12/18 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> Also let me clarify something: A while back we discussed the Hadoop policy
> of requiring 3 +1s for a branch merge. That sounds reasonable to me. I
> don't see this in the current online manual text.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> > unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around
> > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring
> more
> > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> and
> > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> > CTR for trivial changes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> >>
> >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> >>
> >> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
> >> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> progress
> >> beyond discussion.
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > No
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> >> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> >> écrit :
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > I gave +1 already
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> >> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Thanks.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > Best regards,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > - Andy
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> >> > Hein
> >> > >> > (via Tom White)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > - Andy
> >> > >
> >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> >> Hein
> >> > > (via Tom White)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > - Andy
> >> >
> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> >> > (via Tom White)
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Also let me clarify something: A while back we discussed the Hadoop policy
of requiring 3 +1s for a branch merge. That sounds reasonable to me. I
don't see this in the current online manual text.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around
> enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring more
> than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 and
> commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> CTR for trivial changes.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
>>
>> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
>>
>> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
>> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
>> beyond discussion.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > No
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
>> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>> > >>
>> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > I gave +1 already
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Best regards,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - Andy
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> > Hein
>> > >> > (via Tom White)
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > >
>> > > - Andy
>> > >
>> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>> > > (via Tom White)
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it's worth while refreshing the owners concept? I think it's a
> reasonable way to manage the problem, but requires participants willing to
> make the commitment. I find it funny that there's so few owners, 0-1 owner
> per component in general. With as many active committers as we have, I
> would think we could manage a solid showing of 2+ owners each. With as many
> of us as there are who are making a living on the project, I think this
> should be possible.
>
>
Let me freshen up the owners list.
In my previous mail I was giving the impression that I though
'lieutenants/owners' is not working but when I started to list out default
owners in response to Andrew and then after sending the mail, continued the
listing in my head (matteo for snapshotting, stack on rpc, larsh on scan,
etc.), while our coverage may not be complete, we ain't doing too bad here.
> Then again, maybe my perception of active committers is skewed? For
> instance, I am guilty of some level of delinquency regarding my
> responsibilities to the mapreduce component as of late.
>
>
Fellas get busy and do real work. It can't be helped (smile).
St.Ack
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone
> and
> > > unable to hear clearly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic
> mentioned
> > in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> > >
> >
> > You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up
> > what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It
> came
> > up out of this discussion [2].
> >
> > More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt
> at
> > getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting
> > crap commits.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see.
> >
> >
> >
> > Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on
> > REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Owners are not around
> > > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > > society. We can't gate on an owner +1.
> >
> >
> > The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
> > random committers == an owner's +1.
> >
> >
> > > I am not in favor of requiring more
> > > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> > and
> > > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy
> of
> > > CTR for trivial changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for
> > substantive
> > patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > 1.
> >
> >
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html
> > 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > > >
> > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > > >
> > > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> > give
> > > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> > progress
> > > > beyond discussion.
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > > > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> > > écrit
> > > > :
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Andy
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > > Piet
> > > > > Hein
> > > > > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
Perhaps it's worth while refreshing the owners concept? I think it's a
reasonable way to manage the problem, but requires participants willing to
make the commitment. I find it funny that there's so few owners, 0-1 owner
per component in general. With as many active committers as we have, I
would think we could manage a solid showing of 2+ owners each. With as many
of us as there are who are making a living on the project, I think this
should be possible.
Then again, maybe my perception of active committers is skewed? For
instance, I am guilty of some level of delinquency regarding my
responsibilities to the mapreduce component as of late.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> > unable to hear clearly.
>
>
>
> Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic mentioned
> in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda.
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> >
>
> You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up
> what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It came
> up out of this discussion [2].
>
> More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt at
> getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting
> crap commits.
>
>
>
> > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see.
>
>
>
> Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on
> REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale.
>
>
>
> > Owners are not around
> > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > society. We can't gate on an owner +1.
>
>
> The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
> random committers == an owner's +1.
>
>
> > I am not in favor of requiring more
> > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> and
> > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> > CTR for trivial changes.
> >
> >
> > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for
> substantive
> patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> 1.
>
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html
> 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > >
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > >
> > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> give
> > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> progress
> > > beyond discussion.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Andy
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> If you have suggestion, I'm all ears.
>
> Other means have been tried -- education and shaming to name two -- but
> these work sporadically if at all and even afterward, we still have
> unwanted 'testing infrastructure' committed caught only after a second
> reviewer showed up after the commit, changes to critical sections without
> proofing on 'real' cluster under 'real' loads (where the settings that work
> for unit tests, as it can be imagined, can fail miserably), and then
> incompatible changes being committed by 'veterans' even up unto recently (I
> have been guilty of all the above listed myself).
>
Consider reverting the substandard work more aggressively. Needing extra
friction (in the form of multiple +1s) for commit concerns me because the
bandwidth and interest of people around here I observe to be quite
variable. Same reason while I like that we have some active owners, I don't
feel we have enough coverage overall for it to work - I worry I and other
contributors will chase after people for +1s while trying to get work done.
Let's punish the few, not the whole. We should have the equivalent friction
for reverts. Reverts should work the same way as commits: propose it, get a
+1. Maintain a count of reverts by individual committer. If one or more
committers become an outlier here, the PMC can and should take action to
preserve the overall quality of the project. That can be a temporary or
permanent suspension of karma, take it up on private@ as needed.
If we do more reverting, I would suggest allowing a committer who breaks
the build the opportunity to observe the breakage and fix it. This is
normal, that's why we have the Jenkins jobs and other infrastructure set
up. It would be best to avoid it, but despite every effort sometimes it
doesn't work out, the local tests pass yet Jenkins is unhappy. Say 24 hours
because of time zone differences before it's time for someone else to step
in.
Otherwise, unwanted 'testing infrastructure' should be reverted upon sight,
and so on, with cumulative consequences.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> > You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision?
>
> No, and as a member of the community let me indicate that and suggest
> reconsideration.
>
>
Lets start up a formal discussion then Andrew with a DISCUSSION subject
rather than do it down here on the tail of an unrelated thread.
> > The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
> random
> committers == an owner's +1.
>
> The ownership idea looks good on paper, but has it worked out? People on
> the project come and go, and volunteer the time they can, which is variable
> - this is normal and expected.
>
>
The lieutenant idea is 'working' IMO: witness Jimmy input on all to do w/
AM, you or Gary on security/CPs, and so on. It would be better if it was
more comprehensive with more components having more active guardians.
> Perhaps we can address the issue of crap commits more directly? Is that
> possible?
>
>
>
If you have suggestion, I'm all ears.
Other means have been tried -- education and shaming to name two -- but
these work sporadically if at all and even afterward, we still have
unwanted 'testing infrastructure' committed caught only after a second
reviewer showed up after the commit, changes to critical sections without
proofing on 'real' cluster under 'real' loads (where the settings that work
for unit tests, as it can be imagined, can fail miserably), and then
incompatible changes being committed by 'veterans' even up unto recently (I
have been guilty of all the above listed myself).
I'm kinda of stumped on figuring another means of upping the quality of
what goes in other than upping the friction. Fixing incompatibilities
after a release is paid not by the committer but some other poor
unfortunate, downstream soul and the price is usually way in excess of
letting the patch steam a while until a second or third reviewer has had a
looksee (I was recently such an unfortunate myself).
We could spend more time on our testing infra. That would help w/ perf
regressions and unexpected side effect bugs. We could build a public rig
for incompatibility checking (Our Aleks has made a start). We've made a
bunch of progress in the testing area over the 0.96 period w/ the hbase-it
set but we could do more surfacing a public cluster w/ folks 'concerned' on
error or fall-off in perf, or incompatibilites, taking up the fixing of the
regression as a priority. If we had this in place, it would substitute for
our introducing more friction (though we should have the friction anyways
because better test infra won't catch the new 'testing infrastructure' or
plain bad design).
St.Ack
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
> You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision?
No, and as a member of the community let me indicate that and suggest
reconsideration.
> The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by random
committers == an owner's +1.
The ownership idea looks good on paper, but has it worked out? People on
the project come and go, and volunteer the time they can, which is variable
- this is normal and expected.
Perhaps we can address the issue of crap commits more directly? Is that
possible?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> > unable to hear clearly.
>
>
>
> Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic mentioned
> in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda.
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
> >
>
> You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up
> what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It came
> up out of this discussion [2].
>
> More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt at
> getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting
> crap commits.
>
>
>
> > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see.
>
>
>
> Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on
> REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale.
>
>
>
> > Owners are not around
> > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> > society. We can't gate on an owner +1.
>
>
> The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
> random committers == an owner's +1.
>
>
> > I am not in favor of requiring more
> > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1
> and
> > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> > CTR for trivial changes.
> >
> >
> > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for
> substantive
> patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> 1.
>
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html
> 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> > >
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> > >
> > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to
> give
> > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not
> progress
> > > beyond discussion.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Andy
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
> unable to hear clearly.
Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic mentioned
in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda.
> I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
>
You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up
what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It came
up out of this discussion [2].
More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt at
getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting
crap commits.
> Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see.
Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on
REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale.
> Owners are not around
> enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
> community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
> society. We can't gate on an owner +1.
The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by
random committers == an owner's +1.
> I am not in favor of requiring more
> than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 and
> commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
> CTR for trivial changes.
>
>
> For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for substantive
patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so.
St.Ack
1.
http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html
2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
> >
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
> >
> > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
> > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
> > beyond discussion.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a
> écrit
> > :
> > > >>
> > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Andy
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > > Hein
> > > >> > (via Tom White)
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and
unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated.
Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around
enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the
community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer
society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring more
than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 and
commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of
CTR for trivial changes.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
>
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
>
> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
> beyond discussion.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
> > >>
> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I gave +1 already
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > - Andy
> > >> >
> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > >> > (via Tom White)
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s:
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give
chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress
beyond discussion.
St.Ack
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > No
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >>
> >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I gave +1 already
> >> > >
> >> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> >> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > - Andy
> >> >
> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> >> > (via Tom White)
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> No
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
>> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
>> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
>>
>> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I gave +1 already
>> > >
>> > > Waiting for an extra +1
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > It's small and there for a while.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
No
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I gave +1 already
> > >
> > > Waiting for an extra +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's small and there for a while.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA?
Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I gave +1 already
> >
> > Waiting for an extra +1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >
> > > It's small and there for a while.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Why is one +1 not good enough for commit?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I gave +1 already
>
> Waiting for an extra +1
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > It's small and there for a while.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I gave +1 already
Waiting for an extra +1
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> It's small and there for a while.
>
> Thanks.
>