impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Brown <mi...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Choosing a Service Provider for Public Build / Test Infrastructure
Date Wed, 27 Jul 2016 23:20:39 GMT
> My understanding is that this section describes the status quo, not
> your optimal idea of the future?

Correct.

> If so, who do you think should administer a the jobs?

If jobs' configurations and management instructions are kept in SCM as
I propose, then changes will be subject to the same sort of review
standards as code. According to the bylaws, those changes require "At
least one +2 from a committer and no -1 from any committer." [0] For
committers to make informed [1] votes on such proposed changes, it
follows committers who administer jobs will be in the best position to
cast such votes.

Apache Impala (incubating) does not have many committers, so it seems
best to propose that all committers should administer the jobs until
such time as the committers or PMC deem otherwise.

[0] http://impala.apache.org/bylaws.html
[1] "I am confident in the change and this can be committed without
further review after addressing the remaining points I have made."
Ibid.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jim Apple <jbapple@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed doc.
>
>> Soft / Administrative
>>
>> - Anyone employed at Cloudera working on Apache Impala (incubating) can
>> view or alter the jobs (promotes the idea that everyone can enhance the
>> jobs and theoretically helps discourage de facto sysadmins or "experts")
>
> My understanding is that this section describes the status quo, not
> your optimal idea of the future?
>
> If so, who do you think should administer a the jobs? PMC? Committers?
> Some sort of volunteer committee?
>
> (Personally, my feeling is that any of those would be just fine)
>
> Volunteer-wise, I have read the document ("quick audit" task) and am
> comfortable with it.

Mime
View raw message