hadoop-common-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), SZE (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-8248) Clarify bylaws about review-then-commit policy
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:49:16 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13250310#comment-13250310
] 

Tsz Wo (Nicholas), SZE commented on HADOOP-8248:
------------------------------------------------

> My thinking here is that it's fine if one committer does some minor fixup or adds test
cases to a patch that another authored. ...

When the change is minor, I think the committer should not be counted as one of the authors.
 Otherwise, it looks like the committer is stealing credits from the contributor.  How does
it sound to you?

> ... my assumption is that all of the patches on the branch have been reviewed according
to the above policy, ...

It is not true in some cases.  In development branches, we might have commit-then-review;
we might also commit warnings and fix them later; etc.  The HA branch you brought up is one
example.

> ... Finding 3 active committers who are not on that list and are knowledgeable about
NN internals ...

In the HA example, although the list of contributor is slightly long but there are still many
other committers available.  I can easier think of three.  If we drop "knowledgeable about
NN internals", there are probably >20.

BTW, I don't think "knowledgeable about NN internals" is a requirement according to the bylaws.

For extreme cases that no other committer is available, it probably make sense to have a special
discussion for requesting the PMC to relax the requirement for that merge.

> Perhaps we should add a 3-day minimum voting period for branch merges to trunk when that
branch didn't follow the normal RTC guidelines?

Is it the case that it must be 7-day for any voting according to the "Voting Timeframes" in
the bylaws?
                
> Clarify bylaws about review-then-commit policy
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-8248
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8248
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Todd Lipcon
>         Attachments: c8248_20120409.patch, proposed-bylaw-change.txt
>
>
> As discussed on the mailing list (thread "Requirements for patch review" 4/4/2012) we
should clarify the bylaws with respect to the review-then-commit policy. This JIRA is to agree
on the proposed change.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message