incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Edward J. Yoon" <edwardy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review then commit
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:13:56 GMT
Great!

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011. 10. 6., at 오후 6:03, "ChiaHung Lin" <chl501@nuk.edu.tw> wrote:

> I apply for setting up group hama in Apache review board.
> And now it should be able to be found at https://reviews.apache.org/ Group area. 
> 
> -----Original message-----
> From:Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
> To:hama-dev@incubator.apache.org,chl501@nuk.edu.tw
> Date:Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:57:21 +0900
> Subject:Re: Review then commit
> 
>>> . I would like this (at least +1 from a comitter) to be part of our review-commit
process.
> 
> +1
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> @eddieyoon
> 
> 
> --
> ChiaHung Lin
> Department of Information Management
> National University of Kaohsiung
> Taiwan

Mime
View raw message