hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:17:10 GMT
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> We always needed another committer's +1 even if it isn't that clear in the
> bylaws. In the minimum, we should codify this in the bylaws to avoid stuff
> like people committing their own patches.
>
> Regarding trivial changes, I always distinguish between trivial *patches*
> and trivial changes to *existing* patches. Patches even if trivial need to
> be +1ed by another committer. OTOH, many a times, for patches that are
> extensively reviewed, potentially for months on, I sometimes end up making
> a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before
> committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to
> codify this distinction though.
>

In the past, I have made trivial (new lines, indentation, etc.) changes to
well reviewed patches before committing. Even then, I believe we should
upload the updated patch or the diff of trivial changes and wait for
someone else (potentially a non-committer contributor) to quickly check to
avoid making silly mistakes.


> Thanks
> +Vinod
>
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There were discussions on several jiras and threads recently about how
> RTC
> > actually works in Hadoop.
> > My opinion has always been that for a patch to be committed it needs an
> > approval  (+1) of at least one committer other than the author and no
> -1s.
> > The Bylaws seem to be stating just that:
> > "Consensus approval of active committers, but with a minimum of one +1."
> > See the full version under Actions / Code Change
> > <http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html#Decision+Making>
> >
> > Turned out people have different readings of that part of Bylaws, and
> > different opinions on how RTC should work in different cases. Some of the
> > questions that were raised include:
> > - Should we clarify the Code Change decision making clause in Bylaws?
> > - Should there be a relaxed criteria for "trivial" changes?
> > - Can a patch be committed if approved only by a non committer?
> > - Can a patch be committed based on self-review by a committer?
> > - What is the point for a non-committer to review the patch?
> > Creating this thread to discuss these (and other that I sure missed)
> issues
> > and to combine multiple discussions into one.
> >
> > My personal opinion we should just stick to the tradition. Good or bad,
> it
> > worked for this community so far.
> > I think most of the discrepancies arise from the fact that reviewers are
> > hard to find. May be this should be the focus of improvements rather than
> > the RTC rules.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Konst
>
>


-- 
Karthik Kambatla
Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc.
--------------------------------------------
http://five.sentenc.es

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