incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Review-Then-Commit
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:01:05 GMT
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:44, Matthieu Riou <> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Eric Evans <> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:16 +0000, ant elder wrote:
>> >> so about 6 months ago to try to help with problems they were having,
>> >> and since then 99% of the commits have been made by only two people.
>> >
>> > I assume you're referring to Jonathan Ellis and myself, and I'm not sure
>> > that's exactly fair. There are only 4 active committers, and of the 4,
>> > Jonathan and I spend the most time committing patches contributed by
>> > people who can't, and quite often the "review" was conducted by someone
>> > else who doesn't have commit rights and we are simply acting as a proxy.
>> > This results in a lot of svn commits made by us, for contributions that
>> > are not technically ours.
>> >
>> > As a convention, we typically put something like "Patch by $author;
>> > reviewed by $reviewer for $issue_id" in the change description. I just
>> > went through the commits scraping out those messages and it looks like
>> > Jonathan and I account for a little more than 60%, not 99%.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Eric Evans
>> >
>> >
>> So about 40% of the committed code is coming from others and reviewed
>> by others - great - why not make some of those others committers?
> That's pretty much what they're doing about right now but as you know, it
> takes some time to establish a good patch history. I really don't thin
> Cassandra should be accused of being bad at attracting and voting in new
> committers. Given how they started they're definitely better at it than most
> podlings.

Easy there... nobody is accusing anybody of anything.

You asked a question, and people have answered. Some of those answers
have come with concerns. That generates discussion.

I think it is good for any project to review why it is operating
*differently* than the majority of projects here at the ASF. Why is it
"special"? Are those special considerations actually masking a problem
underneath? Are those special processes going to hinder the free and
inclusive participation and community-building that we like to see in
our projects?

It's fair to ask those questions, especially of a podling. But please
don't misconstrue discussion as accusation.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message