hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Caleb Welton <cwel...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:21:17 GMT
Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments for
clarity and excess redundancy.  The last paragraph could still use a bit
more work.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the writeup.  One minor suggestion:
>
> Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> existing committers.
>
> I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
>
> Cjeers.  -- justin
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for any
> > further comments.
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lei
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Justin,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> >>
> >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for further
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Lei
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> justin@erenkrantz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Lei,
> >>>
> >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already
> said.
> >>>
> >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better to
> >>> err on the side of inclusion.  Especially given the early adoption of
> >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted.  Not everyone is going to be
> >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
> >>> commit access.  Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
> >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors.  As a
> >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before graduation
> >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
> >>> them accordingly?
> >>>
> >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document - what
> >>> the definition of sustained contributions are.  While it doesn't have
> >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
> >>> some guidance available.
> >>>
> >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
> >>>
> >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> >>>
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> >>>
> >>> Cheers.  -- justin
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not everyone
> >>> can do
> >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that have
> >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers
> >>> > Lei
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but
> here
> >>> a few
> >>> >> points to consider:
> >>> >>  - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in
> doing
> >>> the
> >>> >>    whole laundry list below
> >>> >>  - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing
where
> >>> there
> >>> >>    want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and
each
> >>> one of
> >>> >>    them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions will
> >>> slow the
> >>> >>    community growth to halt
> >>> >>  - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven
to
> have
> >>> a
> >>> >>    slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra careful
> >>> setting
> >>> >>    such a high bar
> >>> >>
> >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant jack-asses
> >>> should
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great
job
> in
> >>> the,
> >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to
> understand
> >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same area.
> If
> >>> the
> >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
> >>> project -
> >>> >> he
> >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following guidelines,
> he
> >>> >> would
> >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> >>> >>   Cos
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized
the
> >>> points
> >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things
that
> >>> >> typically
> >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
> >>> >> >    1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> >>> >> >    2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> committed
> >>> >> >    by existing committers
> >>> >> >    3. documentation contributions
> >>> >> >    4. wiki/social media contributions
> >>> >> >    5. review of patches submitted by others
> >>> >> >    6. reviews of release candidates
> >>> >> >    7. bug reports
> >>> >> >    8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a
mentor
> to
> >>> new
> >>> >> > contributors
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Cheers
> >>> >> > Lei
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act
as a
> mentor,
> >>> work
> >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
> >>> continuously
> >>> >> or a
> >>> >> > > long time period.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Cheers
> >>> >> > > Lei
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level
of
> >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> Roman.
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming
a new
> committer.
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
<
> >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly
this is something that
> >>> HAWQ
> >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough.
There are no hard and
> >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things
that typically would
> >>> prompt
> >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for
a committer:
> >>> >> > >> >>>    1. participation in the mailing list
conversations
> >>> >> > >> >>>    2. code contributions (patches submitted
to JIRA or PRs)
> >>> >> committed
> >>> >> > >> >>>    by existing committers
> >>> >> > >> >>>    3. documentation contributions
> >>> >> > >> >>>    4. wiki/social media contributions
> >>> >> > >> >>>    5. review of patches submitted by
others
> >>> >> > >> >>>    6. reviews of release candidates
> >>> >> > >> >>>    7. bug reports
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the
project in a
> variety of
> >>> >> > >> different
> >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it
is reasonable to
> expect
> >>> that
> >>> >> > >> your
> >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis
for commitership.
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin
Zhang <
> xzhang@pivotal.io>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing
to apache-hawq.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be
considered at a
> committer,
> >>> and
> >>> >> > >> what's
> >>> >> > >> >>> the
> >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and
when PMC can review the
> >>> >> request.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well
as this project, and any
> >>> >> guidance is
> >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

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