hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From CHANG Lei <chang.lei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Staying with RTC (review-then-commit) rule
Date Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:06:36 GMT
CTR (Commit then Review) or RTC (Review then commit) is a process we need
to finalize soon. Actually, most of the hawq code developed before follows
CTR.

And I just found some other commits on the branch (that does not get 2 +1s,
looks from Caleb :-)

So IMO, to get this finalized might be a good practice for an apache voting
process on Procedural item (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html).

Most committers do not know about the process.

Cheers
Lei


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Caleb Welton <cwelton@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Konstantin, I don't think all the developers are aware of the differences
> between CTR and RTC.  Would you care to elaborate on the contribution
> protocols?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I am the big advocate of CTR model and has been pushing it in a number of
> > the
> > projects before. However, for the very early ones like Hawq right now,
> RTC
> > might make more sense: it takes time to learn how to add new trusty
> people
> > to
> > the community; also for new committers it helps to learn the code faster
> by
> > doing the mandatory reviews. But before you know it, I will be doing
> rounds
> > here pushing for CTR ;)
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > just wanted to say what I said on HAWQ-7, but
> > > since not all of us are watching that JIRA, I think
> > > it would be useful to repeat it here.
> > >
> > > While there's nothing wrong with lazy consensus,
> > > but initially I'd suggest staying with RTC model.
> > > Thus +1 from somebody else should be explicitly
> > > required.
> > >
> > > I don't think there's any disagreement, but I just
> > > wanted to have it explicitly mentioned.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> >
>

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