Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hawq.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hawq.incubator.apache.org
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:12:33 -0700
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: dev@hawq.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Staying with RTC (review-then-commit) rule
Message-ID: <20150929101233.GY19314@boudnik.org>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+ua52shFkADYgT1N4NsD4rac=R6Cre+soE+LM3yQgKRCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150928122903.GI19314@boudnik.org>
 <CAOjayEdr3d5S1UEZppyQWEyNALH-JFnG8zE10PUDKij1kLoj4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE44UQf3nCnjBDpNjKZj5b4q+K5Jvc+HSsBXxC2e2H9q50Qbkw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAE44UQf3nCnjBDpNjKZj5b4q+K5Jvc+HSsBXxC2e2H9q50Qbkw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:06PM, CHANG Lei wrote:
> 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).

While using voting to rubber-stamp a procedural vote is a legit use of the
voting process, let's only use it after the consensus [1] is reached. Voting
isn't a replacement nor a right mechanism to establish policies or practices
within the community. A couple of good examples of gaining the consensus
through the community relevant to the topic are [2] and [3]

Cos

[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
[2] http://bit.ly/1gLeArc
[3] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1831.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.
> > >
> >