accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: open questions on contrib projects
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:00:42 GMT
I think it's reasonable to require there be code related to a new contrib
before filing the INFRA ticket.

I think the problem with having independent committer lists is that it's
complexity without an apparent end.

Take Hive/HCatalog for example:

At what point does it make sense to keep adding sub-projects rather than
trying to create new incubator projects? None of the existing Accumulo
contribs are at the the same level of could-be-a-tlp as HCatalog. If things
aren't so complex, what are we trying to gain as a project by having them
in contrib vice off in github somewhere?

I like the reasoning used by Eric/Josh back on ACCUMULO-600: the purpose of
keeping contribs close to the Accumulo project is that the project as a
whole gains from having complete, complex examples in a way that
documentation is unlikely to address[1]. While the current contributors may
not be well versed specifically in the Wikisearch example, I think a good
bar to have contribs attached to the project is anticipation that their
committers are likely to use commit status on the main project. That is, if
one of the purposes of contribs is to act as a knowledge transfer mechanism
for the advanced use of Accumulo that seems more likely if the committers
are also reviewing stuff in hte main project.



On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:

> At the moment, there is a 1 to 1 for "core" committers and "contrib"
> committers. We haven't had any case otherwise yet.
> If we do start to draw a distinction (which I'm fine with), I'm not sure
> whether or not we want to require some code before the contrib repo is
> created (since it is an INFRA ticket that would need to be serviced by a
> real human being). I think r/w access is on a per-repo basis right now? If
> that's true, we don't have to worry giving out more access than we should.
> On 10/21/13 11:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> I have two questions about contrib projects, one of which I think requires
>> a vote.
>> 1) Are contributors to contrib repos treated the same as contributors ot
>> the main project?
>> I would guess they are, since the contrib repos are still under the
>> Accumulo project. I'd like to make sure Lazy Consensus agrees.
>> 2) What is the process for adding a new contrib repo?
>> All I can find are occasional discussions in jiras. I would expect this to
>> need a similar level of agreement as a release, e.g. PMC majority[3]. But
>> I
>> need something to reference before it would be appropriate for me to cite
>> it in the contrib docs.
>> Presuming an existing PMC agrees with me, could they please call a vote
>> for
>> a bylaw addition for adding new contrib projects?
>> My suggested language follows below.
>> =====
>> [VOTE] Bylaws amendment for creating new Contrib repos
>> Please vote on the following addition to the Apache Accumulo bylaws:
>> ----
>> # Adding a new Contrib Repository
>> Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit their proposal for discussion
>> to the developer mailing list prior to calling for a vote.
>> The addition of a new contrib repo under the Apache Accumulo project will
>> require a vote of existing PMC members. The vote shall have a 72 hour
>> voting window and require majority approval[1]. Following a successful
>> vote, an Accumulo PMC will submit the necessary
>> [1]:**glossary.html#MajorityApproval<>
>> ----
>> This vote will remain open for 72 hours and must have consensus
>> approval[2]
>> to pass.
>> [2]:**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<>
>> =====
>> [3]:**glossary.html#MajorityApproval<>


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message