hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Akira AJISAKA <ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>
Subject Re: Patch review process
Date Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:18:06 GMT
I'm thinking it's unhealthy to have over 1000 JIRAs patch available. 
Reviewers should be more welcome and should review patches from 
everywhere to increase developers and future reviewers.

I'm not completely sure patch managers will make it healthy, however, 
changing the process (and this discussion) would help improving our 
mindsets.

@Committers: Let's review more patches!
@Developers: You can also review patches you are interested in. Your 
comments will help committers to review and merge them.
(As you can see, the above comments don't have any enforcement.)

Regards,
Akira

On 2/4/15 13:52, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> +1 to patch managers per component.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@altiscale.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>          Is process really the problem?  Or, more directly, how does any of
>> this actually increase the pool beyond the (I’m feeling generous today) 10
>> or so committers (never mind PMC) that actually review patches that come
>> from outside their employers on a regular basis?
>>
>
> Process might not be the source of the problem, however process will help
> with alleviating the current situation.
>
> It would definitely help to increase the number of active committers. Might
> not be very hard to add committers, but I don't know of a way to make them
> active.
>
>
>>
>>          To put this in perspective, there are over 1000 JIRAs in patch
>> available status across all three projects right now. That’s not even
>> counting the ones that I know I’ve personally removed the PA status on
>> because the patch no longer applies...
>>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Release managers are just committers trying to roll releases; it's not
>>> an enduring role. A patch manager is just someone helping to track
>>> work and direct reviewers to issues. The job doesn't come with a hat.
>>> We could look into a badge and gun if that would help.
>>
>
> Badge and gun will ensure a single patch-manager per component.
>
>
>>>
>>> This doesn't require a lot of hand-wringing or diagnosis. If you're
>>> concerned about the queue, then start trying to find reviewers for
>>> viable patches.
>>>
>>> We should also close issues that require too much work to fix, or at
>>> least mark them for "Later". Not every idea needs to end in a commit,
>>> but silence is frustrating for contributors. -C
>>
>
> +1.
>
>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Colin P. McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> I wonder if this work logically falls under the release manager role.
>>>>
>>>> During a release, we generally spend a little bit of time thinking
>>>> about what new features we added, systems we stabilized, interfaces we
>>>> changed, etc. etc.  This gives us some perspective to look backwards
>>>> at old JIRAs and either close them as no longer relevant, or target
>>>> them for the next release (with appropriate encouragement to the
>>>> people who might have the expertise to make that happen.)
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mai Haohui <ricetons@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> +1 on the idea of patch managers. As the patch managers should have
>>>>> good expertise on the specific fields, they are more productive on
>>>>> reviewing the patches and driving the development on the specific
>>>>> fields forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Haohui
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Chris Nauroth <
>> cnauroth@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I like the idea of patch managers monitoring specific queues of
>> issues,
>>>>>> perhaps implemented as a set of jira filters on different values
for
>> the
>>>>>> component or label fields.  Right now, looking at the whole HADOOP
>> backlog
>>>>>> is daunting.  Using separate filtered review queues could help each
>>>>>> reviewer focus and parallelize the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going back to the topic of tooling, I just learned that multiple
>> Apache
>>>>>> projects have expressed interest in Gerrit recently.  I've never
used
>>>>>> Gerrit and so can¹t speak in favor or against it, but I think
>> consistency
>>>>>> across Apache has benefits.  Issue INFRA-2205 has the discussion.
 The
>>>>>> issue is closed, but there is recent discussion in the comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2205
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Nauroth
>>>>>> Hortonworks
>>>>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/2/15, 3:56 AM, "Chris Douglas" <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many projects have unofficial "patch managers":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndxMs73gsrhojju7f9TsdTdETsuK-MOOMrhKUqem76kkkPqdT
>>>>>>>
>> 7HLIcILCQrK6zB5ByVEVKrJ3mURCj1heIpRwoH4HjBPpeIpRwoH4HjBPvKLKeSovW_8ELfK6zB
>>>>>>>
>> zHTbFICzBPAQrICzBNXBHFShhlKCNOEuvkzaT0QSyrhdTVeZXTLuZXCXCM0qQqEdSB0zmBenPU
>>>>>>>
>> pgDIvbGX3ifG_2v0U35JDoCnlS6AvyrnlH0KxVAL7VJNwnu7cLCzALq6JNHcCsjH6to6aNaQVs
>>>>>>> 54ZgHlrJmSNf-00CS4QSjobZ8Qg1rpS9Cy2fCpuod42QqS-B3qr1LpPX92TieQHh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who go through outstanding issues, ensuring that each
has
>>>>>>> reached a stable state, or at least a willing reviewer. -C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Steve Loughran <
>> stevel@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given experience of apache reviews, I don't know how much
time to
>> spend
>>>>>>>> on it. I'm curious about Gerrit, but again, if JIRA integration
is
>> what
>>>>>>>> is sought, Cruicible sounds better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Returning to other issues in the discussion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Improving test times would make a big difference; locally
as
>> well as
>>>>>>>> on Jira.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. How can we clear through today's backlog without relying
on a
>> future
>>>>>>>> piece of technology from magically fixing it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For clearing the backlog, I don't see any solution other
than
>> "people
>>>>>>>> put in time". I know its an obligation for committers to
do this,
>> but  I
>>>>>>>> also know how little time most of us have to do things other
than
>> deal
>>>>>>>> with our own tests failing. As a result, things that aren't
viewed
>> as
>>>>>>>> critical get neglected. Shell, build, object stores, cruft
cleanup,
>> etc,
>>>>>>>> I think people that care about these areas are going to have
to get
>>>>>>>> together and sync up. For some of the stuff it may be quite
fast
>> ‹people
>>>>>>>> may not have noticed, but a few of us have brought the build
>>>>>>>> dependencies forward fairly fast recently, with a goal of
Hadoop
>>>>>>>> branch-2/trunk being compatible with recent Guava versions
and java
>> 8.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been doing some S3/object store work the last couple
of
>> weekends;
>>>>>>>> that's slow as test runs take 30+ minutes against the far
end, test
>> runs
>>>>>>>> jenkins doesn't do. If anyone else wants to look at the fs/s3
and
>>>>>>>> fs/swift queue their input is welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course AW went through the entire backlog of shell
stuff & a
>> lot
>>>>>>>> of the not-in-branch-2 features.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So where now? What is a strategy to deal with all those things
in
>> the
>>>>>>>> queue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message