From general-return-4018-apmail-hadoop-general-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org Mon Jul 11 22:51:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3414A48BA for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97763 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2011 22:51:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 97668 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2011 22:51:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 97660 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jul 2011 22:51:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:51:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of eli@cloudera.com designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.176] (HELO mail-wy0-f176.google.com) (74.125.82.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:51:06 +0000 Received: by wyg34 with SMTP id 34so1304112wyg.35 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.198.146 with SMTP id v18mr4414400wen.94.1310424645769; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.235.157 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20967111-1229-4149-88D3-B4DEB8F49C64@hortonworks.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HDFS-1623 branching strategy From: Eli Collins To: general@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jakob Homan wrote: > Eli wrote: >> Each change was done individually with it's own jira, patch, and >> review. =A0People can review the sub-tasks if they don't want to look at >> the entire patch. The majority of the changes were reviewed before >> they were committed, when that wasn't the case review feedback was >> incorporated in follow-on patches. I don't see how this is any >> different from eg how federation was developed. > That's super. > > The question at hand is does the community want to go ahead with the > 1073 model, or not? =A0My preference is not, but since some in the > community like it, I'd suggest making a small tweak to bring it closer > in line with the intent of our bylaws, which clearly are RTC: "The > code can be committed after the first +1." =A0It's not productive to > re-litigate the individual commits on 1073. This is the *branch* policy, which if I understand correctly, the branch maintainer sets. For MR-279 Arun used CTR, for HDFS-1052 Suresh used RTC. I think that's OK. IMO the people doing the work on the branch should make the call. Either way the final patch to trunk goes by the normal rules that any patch to trunk follows. Thanks, Eli