flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Structure the Flink Open Source Development
Date Thu, 12 May 2016 15:45:27 GMT
tl;dr: +1

I also like the proposal a lot. Our community is growing at a quite fast
pace and we need to have some structure in place to still keep track of
everything going on.

I'm happy to see that the proposal mentions cleaning up our JIRA. This is
something that has been annoying me for quite a while, but its too big to
do it alone. If maintainers could take care of their components, we should
have covered already a lot there.

One question regarding the "chair" or "lead" role for components: Is the
first name in the list of maintainers the lead?

I would actually suggest to wait until all proposed maintainers agreed to
the proposal. It doesn't make sense to make somebody a maintainer of
something if they disagree or are not aware of it.




On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 for the initiative. With a better process we will improve the
> quality of the Flink development and give us more time to focus.
>
> Could we have another category "Infrastructure"? This would concern
> things like CI, nightly deployment of snapshots/documentation, ASF
> Infra communication. Robert and me could be the initial maintainers
> for that.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> > Yes, Matthias, that was supposed to be you.
> > Sorry from another guy who frequently has his name misspelled ;-)
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mjsax@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 from my side.
> >>
> >> Happy to be the maintainer for Storm-Compatibiltiy (at least I guess
> >> it's me, even the correct spelling would be with two 't' :P)
> >>
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >> On 05/12/2016 12:56 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >> > +1 for the proposal
> >> > On May 12, 2016 12:13 PM, "Stephan Ewen" <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yes, Gabor Gevay, that did refer to you!
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry for the ambiguity...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Márton Balassi <
> >> balassi.marton@gmail.com
> >> >>>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1 for the proposal
> >> >>> @ggevay: I do think that it refers to you. :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Gábor Gévay <ggab90@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hello,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There are at least three Gábors in the Flink community,  :)
so
> >> >>>> assuming that the Gábor in the list of maintainers of the
DataSet
> API
> >> >>>> is referring to me, I'll be happy to do it. :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Best,
> >> >>>> Gábor G.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 2016-05-10 11:24 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>:
> >> >>>>> Hi everyone!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We propose to establish some lightweight structures in
the Flink
> open
> >> >>>>> source community and development process,
> >> >>>>> to help us better handle the increased interest in Flink
(mailing
> >> >> list
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>>> pull requests), while not overwhelming the
> >> >>>>> committers, and giving users and contributors a good experience.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This proposal is triggered by the observation that we are
reaching
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> limits of where the current community can support
> >> >>>>> users and guide new contributors. The below proposal is
based on
> >> >>>>> observations and ideas from Till, Robert, and me.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ========
> >> >>>>> Goals
> >> >>>>> ========
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We try to achieve the following
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Pull requests get handled in a timely fashion
> >> >>>>>   - New contributors are better integrated into the community
> >> >>>>>   - The community feels empowered on the mailing list.
> >> >>>>>     But questions that need the attention of someone that
has deep
> >> >>>>> knowledge of a certain part of Flink get their attention.
> >> >>>>>   - At the same time, the committers that are knowledgeable
about
> >> >> many
> >> >>>> core
> >> >>>>> parts do not get completely overwhelmed.
> >> >>>>>   - We don't overlook threads that report critical issues.
> >> >>>>>   - We always have a pretty good overview of what the status
of
> >> >> certain
> >> >>>>> parts of the system are.
> >> >>>>>       -> What are often encountered known issues
> >> >>>>>       -> What are the most frequently requested features
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ========
> >> >>>>> Problems
> >> >>>>> ========
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Looking into the process, there are two big issues:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> (1) Up to now, we have been relying on the fact that everything
> just
> >> >>>>> "organizes itself", driven by best effort. That assumes
> >> >>>>> that everyone feels equally responsible for every part,
question,
> and
> >> >>>>> contribution. At the current state, this is impossible
> >> >>>>> to maintain, it overwhelms the committers and contributors.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Example: Pull requests are picked up by whoever wants to
pick them
> >> >> up.
> >> >>>> Pull
> >> >>>>> requests that are a lot of work, have little
> >> >>>>> chance of getting in, or relate to less active components
are
> >> >> sometimes
> >> >>>> not
> >> >>>>> picked up. When contributors are pretty
> >> >>>>> loaded already, it may happen that no one eventually feels
> >> >> responsible
> >> >>> to
> >> >>>>> pick up a pull request, and it falls through the cracks.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> (2) There is no good overview of what are known shortcomings,
> >> >> efforts,
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>>> requested features for different parts of the system.
> >> >>>>> This information exists in various peoples' heads, but
is not
> easily
> >> >>>>> accessible for new people. The Flink JIRA is not well
> >> >>>>> maintained, it is not easy to draw insights from that.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ===========
> >> >>>>> The Proposal
> >> >>>>> ===========
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Since we are building a parallel system, the natural solution
> seems
> >> >> to
> >> >>>> be:
> >> >>>>> partition the workload ;-)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We propose to define a set of components for Flink. Each
> component is
> >> >>>>> maintained or tracked by one or more
> >> >>>>> people - let's call them maintainers. It is important to
note
> that we
> >> >>>> don't
> >> >>>>> suggest the maintainers as an authoritative role, but
> >> >>>>> simply as committers or contributors that visibly step
up for a
> >> >> certain
> >> >>>>> component, and mainly track and drive the efforts
> >> >>>>> pertaining to that component.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is also important to realize that we do not want to
suggest
> that
> >> >>>> people
> >> >>>>> get less involved with certain parts and components, because
> >> >>>>> they are not the maintainers. We simply want to make sure
that
> each
> >> >>> pull
> >> >>>>> request or question or contribution has in the end
> >> >>>>> one person (or a small set of people) responsible for catching
and
> >> >>>> tracking
> >> >>>>> it, if it was not worked on by the pro-active
> >> >>>>> community.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> For some components, having multiple maintainers will be
helpful.
> In
> >> >>> that
> >> >>>>> case, one maintainer should be the "chair" or "lead"
> >> >>>>> and make sure that no issue of that component gets lost
between
> the
> >> >>>>> multiple maintainers.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A maintainers' role is:
> >> >>>>> -----------------------------
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Have an overview of which of the open pull requests
relate to
> >> >> their
> >> >>>>> component
> >> >>>>>   - Drive the pull requests relating to the component to
> resolution
> >> >>>>>       => Moderate the decision whether the feature should
be
> merged
> >> >>>>>       => Make sure the pull request gets a shepherd.
> >> >>>>>            In many cases, the maintainers would shepherd
> themselves.
> >> >>>>>       => In case the shepherd becomes inactive, the
maintainers
> need
> >> >> to
> >> >>>>> find a new shepherd.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Have an overview of what are the known issues of their
> component
> >> >>>>>   - Have an overview of what are the frequently requested
> features of
> >> >>>> their
> >> >>>>> component
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Have an overview of which contributors are doing very
good
> work
> >> >> in
> >> >>>>> their component,
> >> >>>>>     would be candidates for committers, and should be mentored
> >> >> towards
> >> >>>> that.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Resolve email threads that have been brought to their
> attention,
> >> >>>>> because deeper
> >> >>>>>     component knowledge is required for that thread.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A maintainers' role is NOT:
> >> >>>>> ----------------------------------
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Review all pull requests of that component
> >> >>>>>   - Answer every mail with questions about that component
> >> >>>>>   - Fix all bugs and implement all features of that components
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We imagine the following way that the community and the
> maintainers
> >> >>>>> interact:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - Pull requests should be tagged by component. Since
we cannot
> add
> >> >>>> labels
> >> >>>>> at this point, we need
> >> >>>>>     to rely on the following:
> >> >>>>>      => The pull request opener should name the pull
request like
> >> >>>>> "[FLINK-XXX] [component] Title"
> >> >>>>>      => Components can be (re) tagged by adding special
comments
> in
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> pull request ("==> component client")
> >> >>>>>      => With some luck, GitHub and Apache Infra will
allow us to
> use
> >> >>>> labels
> >> >>>>> at some point
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - When pull requests are associated with a component,
the
> >> >> maintainers
> >> >>>>> will manage them
> >> >>>>>     (decision whether to add, find shepherd, catch dropped
pull
> >> >>> requests)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - We assume that maintainers frequently reach out to
other
> >> >> community
> >> >>>>> members and ask them if they want
> >> >>>>>     to shepherd a pull request.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - On the mailing list, everyone should feel equally empowered
to
> >> >>> answer
> >> >>>>> and discuss.
> >> >>>>>     If at some point in the discussion, some deep technical
> knowledge
> >> >>>> about
> >> >>>>> a component is required,
> >> >>>>>     the maintainer(s) should be drawn into the discussion.
> >> >>>>>     Because the Mailing List infrastructure has no support
to tag
> >> >>>> threads,
> >> >>>>> here are some simple workarounds:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     => One possibility is to put the maintainers' mail
addresses
> on
> >> >> cc
> >> >>>> for
> >> >>>>> the thread, so they get the mail
> >> >>>>>           not just via l the mailing list
> >> >>>>>     => Another way would be to post something like "+maintainer
> >> >>> runtime"
> >> >>>> in
> >> >>>>> the thread and the "runtime"
> >> >>>>>          maintainers would have a filter/alert on these
keywords
> in
> >> >>> their
> >> >>>>> mail program.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   - We assume that maintainers will reach out to community
members
> >> >> that
> >> >>>> are
> >> >>>>> very active and helpful in
> >> >>>>>     a component, and will ask them if they want to be added
as
> >> >>>> maintainers.
> >> >>>>>     That will make it visible that those people are experts
for
> that
> >> >>> part
> >> >>>>> of Flink.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ======================================
> >> >>>>> Maintainers: Committers and Contributors
> >> >>>>> ======================================
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It helps if maintainers are committers (since we want them
to
> resolve
> >> >>>> pull
> >> >>>>> requests which often involves
> >> >>>>> merging them).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Components with multiple maintainers can easily have non-committer
> >> >>>>> contributors in addition to committer
> >> >>>>> contributors.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ======
> >> >>>>> JIRA
> >> >>>>> ======
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Ideally, JIRA can be used to get an overview of what are
the known
> >> >>> issues
> >> >>>>> of each component, and what are
> >> >>>>> common feature requests. Unfortunately, the Flink JIRA
is quite
> >> >>>> unorganized
> >> >>>>> right now.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A natural followup effort of this proposal would be to
define in
> JIRA
> >> >>> the
> >> >>>>> same components as we defined here,
> >> >>>>> and have the maintainers keep JIRA meaningful for that
particular
> >> >>>>> component. That would allow us to
> >> >>>>> easily generate some tables out of JIRA (like top known
issues per
> >> >>>>> component, most requested features)
> >> >>>>> post them on the dev list once in a while as a "state of
the
> union"
> >> >>>> report.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Initial assignment of issues to components should be made
by those
> >> >>> people
> >> >>>>> opening the issue. The maintainer
> >> >>>>> of that tagged component needs to change the tag, if the
component
> >> >> was
> >> >>>>> classified incorrectly.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ======================================
> >> >>>>> Initial Components and Maintainers Suggestion
> >> >>>>> ======================================
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Below is a suggestion of how to define components for Flink.
One
> goal
> >> >>> of
> >> >>>>> the division was to make it
> >> >>>>> obvious for the majority of questions and contributions
to which
> >> >>>> component
> >> >>>>> they would relate. Otherwise,
> >> >>>>> if many contributions had fuzzy component associations,
we would
> >> >> again
> >> >>>> not
> >> >>>>> solve the issue of having clear
> >> >>>>> responsibilities for who would track the progress and resolution.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We also looked at each component and wrote the names of
some
> people
> >> >> who
> >> >>>> we
> >> >>>>> thought were natural
> >> >>>>> experts for the components, and thus natural candidates
for
> >> >>> maintainers.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> **These names are only a starting point for discussion.**
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Once agreed upon, the components and names of maintainers
should
> be
> >> >>> kept
> >> >>>> in
> >> >>>>> the wiki and updated as
> >> >>>>> components change and people step up or down.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *DataSet API* (*Fabian, Greg, Gabor*)
> >> >>>>>   - Incuding Hadoop compat. parts
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *DataStream API* (*Aljoscha, Max, Stephan*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Runtime*
> >> >>>>>   - Distributed Coordination (JobManager/TaskManager, Akka)
> (*Till*)
> >> >>>>>   - Local Runtime (Memory Management, State Backends,
> >> >> Tasks/Operators)
> >> >>> (
> >> >>>>> *Stephan*)
> >> >>>>>   - Network (*Ufuk*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Client/Optimizer* (*Fabian*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Type system / Type extractor* (Timo)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Cluster Management* (Yarn, Mesos, Docker, ...) (*Max,
Robert*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Libraries*
> >> >>>>>   - Gelly (*Vasia, Greg*)
> >> >>>>>   - ML (*Till, Theo*)
> >> >>>>>   - CEP (*Till*)
> >> >>>>>   - Python (*Chesnay*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Table API & SQL* (*Fabian, Vasia, Timo, Chengxiang*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Streaming Connectors* (*Robert*, *Aljoscha*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Batch Connectors and Input/Output Formats* (*Chesnay*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Storm Compatibility Layer* (*Mathias*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Scala shell* (*Till*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Startup Shell Scripts* (Ufuk)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Flink Build System, Maven Files* (*Robert*)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> *Documentation* (Ufuk)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Please let us know what you think about this proposal.
> >> >>>>> Happy discussing!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Greetings,
> >> >>>>> Stephan
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>

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