Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hive.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hive.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of heyongqiangict@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=rhHUt8L6Kg6lKNiNH1TqaB9ubXTzozYdi3U2hehPT5bNBOERn6kSYHWiPyP78LrTM6
         DEwi8TR9NrlqSwmtPdMps4/xovIz6547SdcGZXtOv1a/TH+NcqtAiyQVdsRmu12lPUGT
         zGxvXFven77DEzO9EqbsDaQFj0lupNn8rz4nU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C95CDFE5.1CCE5%njain@fb.com>
References: <C95CBAF4.1CCB4%njain@fb.com>
	<C95CDFE5.1CCE5%njain@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:48:45 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimctv0w9Bz9B5nHm0V7o8O2KD6+ac3jbZcoGBqb@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: patch review process
From: yongqiang he <heyongqiangict@gmail.com>
To: dev@hive.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 for option 2.

In general, we as a community should be nice to all contributors, and
should avoid doing things that make contributors not comfortable, even
that requires some work from committers. Sometimes it is especially
true for new contributors, like we need to be more patience for new
people. It seems a free style and contribution focused environment
would be better to encourage people to do more contributions of
different kinds.

thanks
-yongqiang
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Namit Jain <njain@fb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It would be good to have a policy for submitting a new patch for review.
> If the patch is small, usually it is pretty easy to review.But, if it lar=
ge,
> a GUI like reviewboard (https://reviews.apache.org) makes it easy.
>
> So, going forward, I would like to propose either of the following.
>
> 1. All patches must go through reviewboard
> 2. If a contributor/reviewer creates a reviewboard request,
> =A0 =A0 all subsequent review requests should go through the reviewboard.
>
>
> I would personally vote for 2., since for small patches, we don=92t reall=
y need a
> reviewboard.
>
> But, please vote, and based on that, we can come up with a policy.
> Let us know, if you think of some other option.
>
> Thanks,
> -namit
>
>