heron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Regarding package renaming PR#2840
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:54:39 GMT
That’s up to the project to decide. ;)

Mentors are here to help you make sure what you decide upon is consistent with the Apache
Way.

-Taylor

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Karthik Ramasamy <karthik@streaml.io> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Dave and Taylor for the advice. Owners is not probably what I meant.
> Instead, I could call them Reviewers - for this PR.
> 
> Long term since there are so many different modules and each committer
> develop different area of expertise, what is the recommended
> way to review the code and merge them into master?
> 
> cheers
> /karthik
> 
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:56 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As a mentor, I would recommend you avoid any concept of “ownership” like
>> the plague. It implies a project hierarchy that ASF projects do not have.
>> 
>> In ASF projects committer bits are boolean. Bob’s committer bit is no
>> different from Alice’s. Their project expertise may lie in different areas
>> of the codebase, but they are inherently *trusted* not to make reckless
>> changes without collaboration/review with other committers.
>> 
>> If you feel you must go down this path, I would suggest different language
>> than “owner”. At best it should be an informal designation (not a role) by
>> a volunteer who is willing to help shepherd that section of the codebase
>> (e.g. help with/perform PR reviews, groom issues, revive discussions,
>> etc.). I would also recommend documenting the concept, specifically how
>> others can get involved.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Karthik Ramasamy <karthik@streaml.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ashvin -
>>> 
>>> It could be good to designate owners for different areas - let me come up
>>> with a list by the end of the today tonight.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> /karthik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Ning Wang <wangninggm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Make sense to me.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Ashvin A <ashvin@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>> 
>>>>> PR 2840 renames com.twitter package to org.apache. This change touches
>>>> more
>>>>> than *2,127* files. Is there a test strategy for this change which
>>>> updates
>>>>> everything? I believe just depending on unit and integration tests may
>> be
>>>>> insufficient.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also I am hoping git history will be preserved.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should we create a coarse checklist and take ownership of manual
>>>>> verification of individual components?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  1. Examples
>>>>>  2. Heron UI
>>>>>     1. Metrics
>>>>>     2. Logs
>>>>>  3. API server
>>>>>  4. Heron client
>>>>>  5. Docker
>>>>>  6. Schedulers
>>>>>  1. Aurora
>>>>>     2. Kubernetes
>>>>>     3. Yarn
>>>>>     4. ..
>>>>>  7. Python
>>>>>  8. Heron Tracker
>>>>>  9. Heron metrics cache
>>>>>  10. Heron Health manager
>>>>>  11. ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ashvin
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message