incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Hyde <>
Subject Re: Impala commit policy
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2015 02:50:18 GMT
Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or Kudu, and I don’t
like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to stand up for “states' rights”,
the right of podlings and projects to determine their own processes and cultures.


> On Dec 2, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Julian Hyde <> wrote:
>> “No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit.
>> It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review
>> the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t
>> build, whether they run the test suite before committing.
>> This policy is the bare constitutional minimum. We would all hope and expect
>> that the community would quickly agree on some policies, but that is up the community.
>> They are not stupid, they want to produce high-quality software, and they want to
>> their community, and they will figure out a policy that achieves these goals.
> If that's the expectation that is internalized by the podling community than
> I guess my concerns are somewhat taken care of to a point where I'd
> be comfortable giving the proposal a +0.
> Let me explain why it is a +0 instead of +1. This will also be an opportunity
> for me to clarify my seemingly inconsistent position with Kudu proposal (which
> I deliberately +1ed).
> It all comes back to trust and inclusiveness. I thought that Greg was super
> convincing at articulating that CTR policy is an indication, a proxy if you will
> for those qualities. If CTR is there -- I know that the community is
> trusting and
> inclusive. My -1 for Impala was based on their strong resistance to CTR as
> a proxy measure of how ready they are to accept the "Apache Way". Them
> fighting the idea of CTR gave me a strong indication that they are resisting
> to being trusting and inclusive.
> Now, of course, as any astute student of logic will know, necessity
> and sufficiency
> is not the same thing. While a presence of CTR policy is a strong indication of
> the community getting the "Apache Way" the lack of it is not necessarily an
> indication of them not getting it. Impala community, however has one extra
> strike against it that wasn't allowing me to give it the same benefit
> of the doubt
> that Kudu community got (hence +1 for Kudu despite their instance on RTC).
> Impala and its existing community are *not* new to Open Source. They've been
> out on GitHub since late 2012 and they have operated under a very explicit
> BDFL model. Based on their past attitude towards external contributions
> (personalized via statement of the project lead)  I have strong
> reasons to believe
> that they are going to have really tough time adjusting to the Apache governance
> model AND when I saw that strong resistance to CTR that was it for me.
> That said, this thread and the expectations articulated by Tom and others
> make me more comfortable. However, the lack of *actionable* suggestion
> for how they are going to integrate with Apache governance model
> makes it +0 and not +1.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message