hive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reviews & commits (RTC/CTR), contributions, bylaws
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:24 GMT
Thanks for the +1 Alan.

I agree that we're leaving potential contributions on the floor. Doing more
reviews is definitely a very good step in the right direction. Thank you! I
see this Bylaws change as another (small) step in the right direction. I'm
sure we can come up with more ideas.

I'll start a VOTE thread on the user@ mailing list.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Alan Gates <alanfgates@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’m +1 on this change of allowing simple cleanup changes without requiring
> a full review.
>
> But jumping to this fix obscures a bigger problem we have as a community.
> This fix only works for committers, not for non-committers who may also
> contribute such patches.  And it doesn’t solve the situation for
> non-trivial patches.  We’re leaving potential contributions on the floor
> and keeping people out of our community.  We need to solve this.
>
> One thing I’ve been doing over the last few months is set up a filter in
> JIRA for components that I know well (metastore, acid, etc.) and then put a
> recurring task in my task tracker app to review a patch every day.
> Realistically I manage 2-3 reviews a week, but that’s 1-2 more than I was
> doing before.  I encourage my fellow committers to find something that
> works for them.  We need to improve the health of our community.
>
> Alan.
>
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 07:56, Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Thejas for the suggestion & others for jumping in. That seems fine
> > for me. 2 days also seems good. Holidays are different in almost every
> > country so I wouldn't exclude those.
> >
> > I have followed the procedure used for the last Bylaws change and
> created a
> > new Wiki page here: <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Proposed+Changes+to+Hive+Project+Bylaws+-+April+2016
> >> .
> >
> > It includes this paragraph: "Minor issues (e.g. typos, code style issues,
> > JavaDoc changes. At committer's discretion) can be committed after
> > soliciting feedback/review on the mailing list and not receiving feedback
> > within 2 days."
> > I'm not a native speaker so feedback is welcome.
> >
> > I also fixed three typos in the Bylaws (and marked them as changed): <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=62691925&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
> >>
> >
> > Once the discussion settles down I'll open a vote thread on the user@
> > mailing list which requires a 2/3 majority of all active PMC members. I
> > couldn't find a definition of "active" though.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.nair@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree we have a problem here. At least patches as small as this
> >> shouldn't take too long to get reviewed.
> >>
> >> Knox seems to consider a very large set of patches as being under CTR
> >> process.
> >> I think hive is very large and mature project that I would lean
> >> towards RTC process for most issues. I think we can make an exception
> >> for very minor patches such as fixing typos and and checkstyle issues.
> >> Maybe the process can be to solicit reviews for such minor patches by
> >> sending an email to dev@ list and if no response is seen in 2 days, go
> >> ahead and commit it ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've been a long-time contributor to Hive (5 or so years) and have been
> >>> voted in as a committer and I'm very grateful for that. I also
> understand
> >>> that my situation is different than most or lots of committers as I'm
> not
> >>> working for one of the big companies (Facebook, Cloudera, Hortonworks
> >> etc.)
> >>> where you can just ask someone sitting next to you to do a review.
> >>>
> >>> I'd really like to contribute more than I do currently but the process
> of
> >>> getting patches in is painful for me (and other 'outside' contributors)
> >> as
> >>> it is hard to get reviews & things committed. The nature of most of
my
> >>> patches is very minor[1] (fixing typos, checkstyle issues etc.) and I
> >>> understand that these are not the most interesting patches to review
> and
> >>> are easy to miss. I don't blame anyone for this situation as I totally
> >>> understand it and have been on the other side of this for other
> projects.
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything we can do to make it easier for me and others like me
> >> to
> >>> contribute here? I absolutely see the value in having "cleaner" code
> and
> >>> when done in small batches it's usually not very disruptive either.
> >>>
> >>> The bylaws currently require a +1 from a committer who has not authored
> >> the
> >>> patch. Knox for example has a different policy [2] where they
> distinguish
> >>> between major features and minor things which can be committed freely.
> >>>
> >>> Hive could adopt something similar or like a middle ground. These are
> >> just
> >>> two suggestions:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) without
> >> requiring
> >>> an extra +1
> >>> 2) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) with Lazy
> >> approval
> >>> (i.e. wait 24 hours)
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the long rant but I'd love some feedback on this and am
> looking
> >>> forward to contributing more in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Lars
> >>>
> >>> [1] e.g. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12467>
> >>> [2] <
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process>
> >>
>
>

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