incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Jungblut <thomas.jungb...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Review then commit
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:25:21 GMT
I think we should use the review board more intensive. We have some really
large features for our 0.4.0 release and we should review code (more).
I would love if our committers can make an account on the review board and
that we use it.
Any opinions?

Hadoop's process is good, we should add this to the HowToCommit guide:
http://wiki.apache.org/hama/HowToCommit

2011/10/4 ChiaHung Lin <chl501@nuk.edu.tw>

> Hadoop's practice looks good. I would like this (at least +1 from a
> comitter) to be part of our review-commit process.
>
> -----Original message-----
> From:Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vinodkv@hortonworks.com>
> To:hama-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:15:06 +0530
> Subject:Re: Review then commit
>
> Apache has the review board: https://reviews.apache.org
>
> Back in Hadoop, we get things via uploading patches to the JIRA issues,
> requiring one single +1 from a committer for the patch to go in.
>
> +vinod
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Jungblut <
> thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1, review tool seems to be a good thing. Do we have something similar in
> > the Apache environment?
> >
> > 2011/9/28 ChiaHung Lin <chl501@nuk.edu.tw>
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > But in what way are we going to perform such tasks/ procedure?
> > >
> > > Given a quick search on the internet, there are several tools and
> methods
> > > employed for this procedure:
> > >
> > > 1.) httpd has voting system that if 3 other developers gave positive
> (+1)
> > > vote and there are no negative (-1) vote[1].
> > >
> > > 2.) some linux kernel sub systems use patchwork[2] which tracks/
> reports
> > > patches series.
> > >
> > > 3.) Google internally uses Mondrian for code review, which has an open
> > > source version released as Rietveld[3].
> > >
> > > [1]. Patch Review Processes in Open Source Software Development
> > > Communities: A Comparative Case Study.
> > > http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2007.426
> > >
> > > [2]. Reducing your patch workload with Patchwork.
> > > http://linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/proposals/255
> > >
> > > [3]. Mondrian: Code Review on the Web.
> > >
> http://code.google.com/p/rietveld/downloads/detail?name=Mondrian2006.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From:Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>
> > > To:hama-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Date:Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:41:06 +0200
> > > Subject:Re: Review then commit
> > >
> > > +1 for me
> > > Tommaso
> > >
> > > 2011/9/27 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Hama committers are on the increase. So it's time to consider the
> > > > development process.
> > > >
> > > > Typically, many apache projects adopt a review-then-commit process.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> > > > @eddieyoon
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ChiaHung Lin
> > > Department of Information Management
> > > National University of Kaohsiung
> > > Taiwan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Jungblut
> > Berlin <thomas.jungblut@gmail.com>
> >
>
>
> --
> ChiaHung Lin
> Department of Information Management
> National University of Kaohsiung
> Taiwan
>



-- 
Thomas Jungblut
Berlin <thomas.jungblut@gmail.com>

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