Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADY20s7nHvtwdkdG_ObGukn+yGkb4qx=_h89DHjX0briKViP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALte62zKOwgWuLAyCzvy1oYm9CHsUr6T4QV343LvStoOzj4BkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADY20s7nHvtwdkdG_ObGukn+yGkb4qx=_h89DHjX0briKViP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:16:04 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CALte62wrQ0B-bUNu1cXcL3n_ABinv5c4BGNNomCKUQYTyPPptw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: request #2 from a grumpy old man
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba61440642c97e04aab77db6

--90e6ba61440642c97e04aab77db6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Todd:
Your reply makes sense.

Thanks

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seeking a little clarification for request #2:
> > Let us assume the good patch is submitted on day X
> > Committer A put +1 on the patch on day Y (>= X)
> > Committer B put +1 on the patch on day Z (> Y)
> >
> > Is it Okay to commit the patch on or after Z ?
>
> I think it's a judgment call - I have no problem with trivial patches
> being committed "immediately" - ie on first +1, or even before if it's
> truly trivial. On the other hand, something like HFile v2, Li's block
> cache, largely rewritten HLog, etc, should have a review period of
> several days if not more.
>
> I trust the committers to make the call here - no sense in having hard
> rules. In my mind, some of the reasons why a patch should need more
> review are:
> - very large patch (people might be putting off the review for a few
> days to find a 3-4 hour chunk of time to look at it)
> - non-trivial changes to really core/complicated bits (eg HLog, MemStore,
> etc)
> - big API changes (we'll have to maintain them going forward)
>
> If a committer is on the edge of whether something needs more review,
> maybe send a quick note to dev@ along the lines of "I plan to commit
> HBASE-1234 tomorrow unless there are any objections. Is anyone still
> planning on taking a look who hasn't yet?"
>
> -Todd
>
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey folks. Some time over the last three years working on Hadoop and
> >> HBase I've turned from a fun loving youth into a grumpy old man. So
> >> here are two grumpy requests I've been thinking about of late, on
> >> which I'd like to solicit opinions.
> >>
> >> Grumpy request #1
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> I commented the following on HBASE-2077 earlier, but figured it was
> >> worth putting on the mailing list as well.
> >>
> >> "In the future could we open separate JIRAs rather than doing a "part
> >> 2" when the commits are more than a day apart? It's very difficult to
> >> figure out what went on in the history of this JIRA, since it was
> >> committed for 0.20 in Dec '09, briefly amended in Feb '10, amendation
> >> partially reverted the next day, and then another change in Jun '11
> >> for 0.90.4 to solve an entirely different bug than the description
> >> indicates. This makes it very difficult to support past branches or
> >> maintain distributions, since it appears this was fixed long ago but
> >> in fact 0.90.3 lacks a major part of the JIRA."
> >>
> >> This happens fairly frequently in HBase (I'm guilty of it as well),
> >> and while I appreciate the value of a lightweight process, it does
> >> make it very difficult to track bug fixes when the multiple commits
> >> can cross different point releases. For example, we often have
> >> customers who have heard of some JIRA number fixing a problem, and say
> >> "does 0.90.3 include HBASE-nnnn"? A quick look at the history of
> >> 0.90.3 will tell you "yes", when in fact the real underlying issue
> >> isn't fixed until 0.90.4, trunk, etc.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose the following guidelines for "followup commits
> >> under the same JIRA":
> >> 1) A followup commit is fine so long as it follows within 1 day of the
> >> original commit.
> >> 1a) The followup commit should include in the commit message a
> >> description of what differs, eg a commit message format like:
> >> "Amend HBASE-nnnn. Followup to previous commit which forgot to include
> >> Foo.java" would be great. Or if it fixes some small bug in the
> >> previous commit, "Amend HBASE-nnnn. Fix bug JD pointed out in
> >> http://permalink-to-the-jira-comment".
> >> 2) A followup commit may never be done "across versions" - ie if a
> >> JIRA has already been committed to any code base that's been released,
> >> it can't be amended after that, even if the fix is trivial.
> >> 3) Backport commits are of course OK so long as the patch is
> >> essentially the same (eg if something's committed to 0.92.0, it can be
> >> backported to 0.90.n if it's basically the same code)
> >>
> >> Does this seem reasonable?
> >>
> >> Grumpy request #2
> >> -----------------------------
> >> Recently we've had a lot of great significant contributions. A lot of
> >> the time they've been committed very quickly -- ie from patch to
> >> commit in a few hours. This is great for encouraging contributors, but
> >> I'm worried we may lose some stability or may introduce features that
> >> are questionable. For any patches that are complicated or introduce
> >> new APIs, can we try to leave them open for at least a day or two
> >> before commit?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Todd
> >> --
> >> Todd Lipcon
> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

--90e6ba61440642c97e04aab77db6--