Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hawq.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hawq.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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>
 <20150929101233.GY19314@boudnik.org>
From: Caleb Welton <cwelton@pivotal.io>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:48:32 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAOjayEfsT2Dws+GcuJS5yYYU6+_Sz5s1hOLOAJixDv_Z2uT5ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Staying with RTC (review-then-commit) rule
To: dev@hawq.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ee868e55f6b0520e7434d

--001a113ee868e55f6b0520e7434d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Konstantin, thanks for the references, it's helpful seeing what other
projects have done and the discussions they have had.

Right now I'm inclined to follow Roman's advice of starting with RTC at
least until we've gotten into the swing of things Apache style.  This also
seems in-line with the contribution guidelines that Lei sketched out [1]
which seems to assume a RTC model.

The LazyConsensus model seems like a good addition to a pure RTC.  The
voting guidelines that you posted seem to indicate 3 +1's are typical.
>From a hallway conversation with Roman it sounded like 1 or 2 are equally
common.

So... I propose:
  - Use RTC and revisit if we feel this is too much overhead
  - Start with 2 +1's defining consensus
  - Allow LazyConsensus
  - Update the contribution guidelines accordingly

Agree/Disagree?  Hopefully we can get some more people to weigh in.

Caleb

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Contributing+to+HAWQ#ContributingtoHAWQ-Codereview


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> 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.
> > > >
> > >
>

--001a113ee868e55f6b0520e7434d--