hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lei Chang <lei_ch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Contribution process: corrections are needed
Date Sat, 05 Mar 2016 02:21:41 GMT
Hi Konstantin,

Thanks for the great comments on the contribution process. the wiki process
is from the discussion of the initial contributors. The target is to help
the review and communication on the code changes since github gives a good
UI for this. From my personal perspective, I am quite open for any
alternatives the community like. hope to see more comments around this.


On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> What as triggered this email is the comment http://is.gd/voNOYe asking
> for a GH
> PR to make a review of 3-lines patch easier.
> So, I've decided to return the favor and looked at the Contribution wiki.
> Now
> with my mentor hat on I would kindly ask the community to alter the
> description of the contribution process and make GH to be an optional or
> alternative way of contributing the code. A project source code _has_ to
> originate from the ASF premises. By posting this
> {noformat}
> # Fork the apache github mirror incubator-hawq repo; you will work on your
> own repo for new features or bug fixes
> # Clone your own repository to local
> git clone https://github.com/changleicn/incubator-hawq
> # Add the apache github mirror as “upstream”
> git remote add upstream https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq.git
> {noformat}
> On top of variety of a bucket of other potential issues, this above is
> effectively forcing new contributors to use GH and making it mandatory for
> someone who wants to contribute a, perhaps, tiny piece of content to go and
> create a GH account, etc. This seems to be creating an unnecessary barrier
> of
> entry and making the podling to be dependent from an external tooling. To
> put
> it in perspective, this is as bad as saying "Ok, if you want to contribute
> you'll have to use Eclipse (or Emacs or whatever)".
> Would be happy to go into more details on this, but perhaps it is clear
> enough.
> Thanks in advance!
>   Cos

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