hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amandeep Khurana <ama...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:58:57 GMT
I'd like to volunteer for client, tools (copytable, export/import, etc and
others that will come up in the future).

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'd add WAL/HLog, Mutations (Put/Delete), Memstore, and Coprocessors to
> what I'd volunteer for since I've been in that code a lot.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Component Lieutenants?
>
> 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
>

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