Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-ambari-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-ambari-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B46E17DEF for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90486 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2015 16:50:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ambari-dev-archive@ambari.apache.org Received: (qmail 90457 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2015 16:50:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ambari.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@ambari.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ambari.apache.org Received: (qmail 90443 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2015 16:50:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:50:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 558D21809CD for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:50:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.554, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLCOX2X1LRbf for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esg01.rackspace.com (esg02.rackspace.com [192.237.132.25]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1841F42BB1 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.rackspace.com (unknown [10.13.196.92]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 5725A2DFBC8D8 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 543818-OEXCH01.ror-uc.rackspace.com (10.13.196.91) by 544124-OEXCH02.ror-uc.rackspace.com (10.13.196.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.6; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:45:04 -0600 Received: from 543818-OEXCH01.ror-uc.rackspace.com ([fe80::5c15:c66b:3251:9f85]) by 543818-OEXCH01.ror-uc.rackspace.com ([fe80::5c15:c66b:3251:9f85%17]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:45:04 -0600 From: Greg Hill To: "dev@ambari.apache.org" Subject: Re: Resolution time for issues / development practices Thread-Topic: Resolution time for issues / development practices Thread-Index: AQHRMpOB/8XvvhXSZk6gTXwbrcGKYJ7C3L+A Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:45:04 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [72.3.161.24] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <380C6C4AFDB9764E97ED85F466B03A91@rackspace.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I mostly agree with what you're saying. I definitely don't want to kill the velocity in Ambari, but it's impossible to keep up with the deluge of JIRAs that get opened and fixed in each point release. 2.1.2 had 377 JIRAs marked as Fixed, 2.2.0 has 719 (639 of those were marked as bugs). Is Ambari just that buggy? Are the tests that insufficient? It seems like we should maybe take a step back as a community and address the problems that result in 639 bug fixes in a point release. That's exceedingly high for a project of this size and scope. Maybe the velocity of changes is creating more bugs than it's fixing? Are code reviews not giving sufficient scrutiny to new contributions? Are there major architectural problems that make bugs so common? I hope some of the core developers on the project will chime in with their thoughts on how to move things in a better direction, because frankly upgrading to 2.2.0 scares me. We're on 2.1.1 and have worked around most of the bugs we've run into. I don't want to find out what new bugs were created by the 1100 JIRAs that have been closed in the meantime. I don't mean to call anyone out here. I just want to see things get better. A new release of Ambari should be seamless. It shouldn't cause panic. How can we fix it and how can we get the community involved in making it better? As I say this I realize that I haven't contributed as much as I've meant to. I'll work on fixing that. Greg On 12/9/15, 9:07 AM, "Lars Francke" wrote: >Hi, > >sorry for yet another mail from a newcomer to the project. There's been a >huge discussion (across a couple of threads actually) on the Incubator >mailing list recently. It started with the "Concerning Sentry" thread[0]. > >The issue being discussed in that thread is that some feel that >discussions >and development actually happen outside of Apache and out of sight of >other >contributors. Having looked at Ambari for two days now I get a very >similar >feeling here and I would ask and urge you to look at your practices. > >Just to give some examples these tickets have been created, reviewed and >resolved within the last three hours (most within minutes): AMBARI-14290, >AMBARI-14288, AMBARI-14289. > >Two major and one critical issue. In my opinion waiting for at least 24 or >48 hours before committing a patch would be good practice as would >attaching a patch file to the issue itself as mentioned in my previous >mail. Otherwise no potential contributor even has a chance to intervene or >give feedback. > >Thanks for considering. > >Cheers, >Lars >[0] < >http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/52126/focus=3D= 52 >351 >> > >PS: I sent this mail earlier from the wrong account but I don't think it >ever made it to the mailing list, if it did please excuse the double post