zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Benediktson <dbenedikt...@twitter.com.INVALID>
Subject Process for reviewing submitted patches?
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:30:53 GMT
Hi there,

  Does the Zookeeper project have any formal process for ensuring submitted
patches get reviewed and subsequently committed?

  About a week ago I again submitted a patch for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2471. This is something
like the third time I've submitted a patch to Apache Zookeeper over the
past year, and none of them has ever been reviewed. While they have all
fixed real bugs we've seen in production while running Zookeeper, I have
never urgently needed them to be committed because we maintain a fork where
we have already taken the bug fixes we need, so I have been inclined to not
make a nuisance of myself and let the Zookeeper PMC decide the best course
of action, but this is honestly somewhat frustrating. I would much rather
run Apache Zookeeper than run a private fork of it, but given the
experience so far in pushing our patches upstream and the sheer number and
scope of patches we have, this is a pretty daunting thought right now.

  I realize this is a volunteer operation and that we all have day jobs,
but I feel like this situation needs some improvement. Would it be possible
for the committers to set up some sort of regular review cadence and
provide some sort of loose expected SLA for reviewing, and assuming review
is approved, subsequently committing, submitted patches? To be clear, I
don't want to push a lot of work or strict timelines or anything: like I
said, I realize this is a volunteer project and that we're all quite busy.
But if we could even get something like a 1-month intended SLA for
reviewing a submitted patch, and then a 1-month intended SLA for committing
after a patch was accepted in review, I think it would be hugely beneficial
for contributors.


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