lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noble Paul <>
Subject Re: Commit / Code Review Policy
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:49:26 GMT
> I don't think this has anything to do with code review: it has to do with people just
piling in features, but not taking the time to do any janitorial work or remove old features
that shouldn't be there anymore (I AM LOOKING AT YOU HDFS)

100 %. If there is one problem with Solr today, it is feature bloat.
We need to trim down Solr by atleast 50%

What we need to do urgently is to create a white list of essential
features and eliminate others. We are just getting crushed by the
amount of code we have in Solr. We don't have so many people who can
actively maintain such a large codebase

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:34 AM David Smiley <> wrote:
> Mike D.,
>   I loved your response, especially for researching what other projects do!
> ... more responses within...
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Mike Drob <> wrote:
>> I'm coming late into this thread because a lot of the discussion happened while I
was offline, so some of the focus has shifted, but I'll try to address a few topics that were
brought up earlier anyway. In an effort to be brief, I'll try to summarize sentiments rather
than addressing specific quotes - if I mischaracterize something please let me know!
>> First, I don't believe that RTC requires consensus voting with 3 reviews per commit
or anything nearly so burdensome. A brief survey of other Apache projects shows that most
on RTC only need a single review, and also can include exceptions for trivial changes like
we are discussing here. If we're trying to find a compromise position, I personally would
prefer to be more on the RTC side because I think it's a more responsible place to be for
a project that backs billions of dollars of revenue across hundreds of companies annually.
>> Spark is pretty strict RTC, but with such a volume of contributions it may be the
only option sustainable for them.
>> HBase requires a review and has an exception for trivial patches -
>> Yetus requires reviews, but allows binding review from non-committers, and has a
no review expiration. - there's a lot of other good discussion
there too.
>> Zookeeper requires a minimum one day waiting period on all code change, but does
not require explicit reviews. -
>> One piece I'll echo from the Yetus discussion is that if we have a habit of review,
then we're less likely to get stagnant patches, and we're also more likely to engage with
non-committer contributions. If we don't have that habit of reviews, then patches do get stale,
and trust/self-enforcement becomes the only sustainable way forward.
>> A second point that I'm also concerned about is the idea that we don't want JIRA
issues or CHANGES entries for trivial or even minor patches. This has a huge impact on potential
contributors and their accessibility to the project. If contributors aren't credited for all
of their work, then it makes it harder for them to reach invitation as a committer. As a personal
example, a lot of my changes were around logging and error handling, which are minor on your
list but fairly important for a supporter in aggregate. If the community signalled that the
work was less valuable, less visible, and less likely to be accepted (each of which can follow
from the previous I think) then I don't know that I would have been motivated to try and contribute
those issues.
> Our CHANGES.txt tries to simultaneously be a useful document in informing users (and
us) of what was changed for what issue that we might actually care about, and *also* give
kudos to contributors.  There is a lot of noise in there, as it is.  If hypothetically a contributor
files a JIRA issue with minor/trivial priority, then maybe a git author tag is enough?  Or
if not then maybe adding a special section in the CHANGES.txt for a special thanks to contributors
of unspecified issues?
>> To the point about security issues, that's something that should probably be addressed
explicitly on the security/private list, and it absolutely needs review if only so that other
developers can learn and avoid those issues again. That's where the power of community is
really important, and I don't expect issues like that to sit around with a patch waiting for
very long anyway.
>> Overall, I think following in the Yetus or ZK model with a 72 hour timeout is a reasonable
compromise, especially because a hard shift from CTR to RTC would need a corresponding culture
shift that may not happen immediately.
> Yes I agree.  Can you suggest a proposed guideline (or perhaps actual policy?  hmm)?
 Today our guidelines don't quite have this rule, which thus allows a committer to commit
a major change immediately without a review (ouch!).  Surely we don't *actually* want to allow
>> Mike

Noble Paul

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

View raw message