hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shivram Mani <shivram.m...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Concern about under-communication in the HAWQ community
Date Sat, 02 Apr 2016 02:14:54 GMT
I would have preferred having dev discussions in a thread/group separate
from the one that has all the jiras.
The HAWQ UD(pxf component) team specifically has had more discussions
within jiras and not directly on dev@.
The other cause for fewer discussions on dev@ might be since teams are
still using team specific channels (slack/tracker,etc).


On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 for Roman's suggestion. I think it might help on the communication if
> some best practices are followed.
>
> For example, do a search before creating a new JIRA to avoid duplicate
> JIRAs. Typically, there are 800+ messages on dev@ each month. it is
> challenging for all people to read all the details every day.
>
> For HAWQ-307 (Ubuntu patch), as I observe, contributors are verifying the
> patch, and have some comments on the pull request and waiting feedback from
> the original contributor.before merging the patch.
>
> Regards
> Lei
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > for the past month or so I've been noticing that there's
> > clearly under-communication going on in the HAWQ
> > community. In fact, the more activity I see around code
> > going in with next to 0 activity on dev@
> >
> > A community needs conversation. Discussion. Consideration
> > of topics, roadmaps, and feature development.
> >
> > Here's the most recent example of that:
> >     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-410
> > where a commit recently went in without the JIRA ever
> > being updated or a solution negotiated/reviewed with
> > the original submitter. In fact, the content of that commit
> > is not problem free. For example, the following really
> > needs to be fixed:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/master/depends/libhdfs3/README.md
> > ==============================================
> > Libhdfs3 is developed by Pivotal and used in HAWQ, which
> > is a massive parallel database engine in Pivotal Hadoop
> > Distribution.
> > ==============================================
> >
> > A similar example is:
> >      https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-536
> > where the original contribution seems to have been
> > silently ignored and a new issue and code merge on
> > HAWQ-548 did the exact same thing without recognition
> > of the previous issue.
> >
> > Another good example of this would be:
> >      https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-307
> > where there was a lot of collaboration on a JIRA driven
> > by Cos, there was a branch for that work developed in
> > the tree, but now it seems that branch no longer gets
> > any attention and it feels like we're restarting this from
> > scratch.
> >
> > I can go on, but I think you get my point.
> >
> > At this point, I'd like to:
> >    1. highlight this in our Incubator report
> >    2. understand how are you guys going to change the situation
> > Please provide your comments on this thread for both.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
>



-- 
shivram mani

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