hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:15:18 GMT
For me, I'd say hbck, copytable, snapshots, and likely assignment soon.

Jon.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

> I can volunteer for Assignments( though the trunk code I need some more
> hands on),
> Split regions, HLog replay.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Yu [mailto:yuzhihong@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:36 AM
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
> > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
> >
> > I volunteer for snapshots and WAL components.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe just make it an informal list of (self declared :) )
> > "specialists".
> > > For example if I see changes in the Assignment code that I do not
> > > understand I usually defer to Ram. If there's some HFile stuff, I
> > defer to
> > > Mikhail...
> > >
> > > If we had a list of specialists, it would be easier to defer to them,
> > or
> > > to pull them into a review. I think that would be better than strict
> > > guidelines.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd volunteer for: Transactions/MVCC, Scanners/Scanning/QueryMatcher,
> > > Client, Deletion, Performance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars hofhansl <
> > > lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
> > >
> > > Why doesn't every committer or contributor with interest volunteer?
> > Some
> > > overlap there would be good. Beyond that we can list the remaining
> > areas
> > > without good coverage and nominate for them?
> > >
> > > I volunteer for Coprocessors, REST, security, filters, and client.
> > >
> > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM, lars hofhansl
> > <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> I like that idea.
> > > >>
> > > >> Should all PMC members or committers be at top level of the source
> > > tree? Or will that just take us back to the status-quo?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I feel like that would take us back to the status quo.
> > > >
> > > > The downside of this proposal is that we should probably have some
> > > > well-principled way of determining who gets "ownership" (whether
> > > > co-ownership or alone) of each part of the heirarchy. I fear it
> > could
> > > > become political or discourage people from contributing or
> > reviewing
> > > > code outside their area of expertise. So, if people have good ideas
> > on
> > > > how to go about doing this, please shout them out!
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I certainly like that a typical patch then will involve multiple
> > > reviewer, and it will be more defined who should look at what patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Lars
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> > > >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > >> Cc:
> > > >> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:15 PM
> > > >> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
> > > >>
> > > >> I like the idea of lieutenants, but another option would be a
> > > >> "multi-lieutenant" model.
> > > >>
> > > >> The model used at google is that each directory has a file called
> > > >> "OWNERS" which lists several usernames, one per line.
> > > >>
> > > >> For any given patch, you are expected to get a review such that,
> > for
> > > >> each modified file, one of the OWNERS listed in that directory (or
> > any
> > > >> parent thereof) has +1ed.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, for example, imagine that hbase/OWNERS has only Stack, and
> > > >> hbase/foo/component1/OWNERS has "jxiang,larsh". If I make a patch
> > > >> which touches something in foo/component1/bar/, I'd need a review
> > from
> > > >> at least one of Jimmy, Lars, or Stack.
> > > >>
> > > >> The assumption is that you try to get review from the most
> > specific
> > > >> owner, but if those people are MIA, you get review from someone
> > higher
> > > >> up the stack. The multi-person-per-dir model also ensures that, if
> > > >> someone's on vacation or otherwise busy, we don't get blocked. And
> > it
> > > >> formalizes in the actual source tree who you should probably email
> > if
> > > >> you have questions about an area.
> > > >>
> > > >> It also means that wide-ranging patches that touch multiple
> > components
> > > >> need a lot of reviewers (or someone higher up the chain of command
> > who
> > > >> has "permission" on the whole tree). So if I had a mondo patch
> > that
> > > >> touched the region server, the master, and the IPC layer, I'd
> > probably
> > > >> need at least three separate people to sign off.
> > > >>
> > > >> Whatever we do, rather than making it a strict policy, let's start
> > out
> > > >> with a soft touch. Perhaps declare the component maintainers and
> > try
> > > >> to pick reviewers based on the criteria. But if people are busy
> > and
> > > >> work needs to get done, we don't need to be anal about it :)
> > > >>
> > > >> -Todd
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >>> At the contributor's pow wow a few days ago [1], during a
> > discussion
> > > >>> about whether or not commits should have more friction applied
--
> > i.e.
> > > >>> have more review before they go in -- it was thought that we
> > might
> > > >>> benefit if we had "lieutenants" over-seeing individual HBase
> > > >>> components.  A lieutenant would be someone who has an interest
> > and an
> > > >>> understanding of how a particular component works (or should
> > work).  A
> > > >>> lieutenant does not need to be a committer.  Before committing
a
> > patch
> > > >>> that touched on a particular component, the patch would have to
> > have
> > > >>> been +1'd by the component lieutenant before it could go in (or
> > if the
> > > >>> lieutenant is MIA, it was suggested by the Mighty Jon Hsieh that
> > two
> > > >>> +1s by other contributors/committers would do instead; this
> > latter
> > > >>> rule would probably also apply when a patch spanned components).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We already have a few folks signed up, knowingly or otherwise,
as
> > > >>> component owners [1].
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do folks think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Should we go ahead w/ this project?  If so, any volunteers (I
> > signed
> > > >>> up a few of the obvious component leads)?  I can add you as
> > component
> > > >>> lieutenant into JIRA.  We can add more components if you don't
> > see
> > > >>> your interest listed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> St.Ack
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1. http://www.meetup.com/hbaseusergroup/events/80621872/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Todd Lipcon
> > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
>
>


-- 
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

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