sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arvind Prabhakar <arv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RTC / CTR
Date Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:00:27 GMT
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
<nour.mohammad@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I see you have a lot of initial committers so the RTC can work
> fine, I suppose at least. IMHO you can go like this:
>
> We should not put a global timeout, when someone is picking up the
> patch to be reviewed whether from committers or non-committers, the
> reviewer SHOULD do the following:
>
> 1- The JIRA task related to that patch is RESOLVED and then go to step (2).
> 2- The committer or non-committer sends an e-mail to sqoop-dev@ asking
> for review and the subject of the e-mail MUST be tagged with [REVIEW]
> prefix.
> 2- Whoever picks the patch first, replies back to the e-mail with the
> estimated time he/she has, which is a factor you both dropped :D, to
> review and then commit the patch.
>  2.1- If OK, then the patch is committed, JIRA is CLOSED, then go to step (3)
>  2.2- If not OK, then re-open the JIRA task and write your comments
> and then go to step (3)
> 3- Send a reply to the [REVIEW] thread
>  3.1- If patch was OK, send e-mail stating that.
>  3.2- If patch was not OK, send an e-mail with some detail about
> where to find the comments, which should be commented on the JIRA
> task, and hence the cycle is started from the beginning.

Thanks for the proposal Mohammad. If followed, I am sure it will be
effective. However, my concern is that it is a bit process heavy.
Also, I feel that marking the Jira resolved without having committed
the change is misleading.

My preference would be to keep the process as informal as possible. A
modified version of your proposal on these lines would be as follows:

- The committer attaches the patch s/he would like to submit to the
Jira and posts a code review request with at least one other committer
identified as the reviewer.
- If the reviewer does not respond in two days time, the committer
sends a note to sqoop-dev asking for the reviewer to prioritize the
review or for any other committer to volunteer for the review.
- If the review is still not done in the next three days, the change
may be committed and the Jira resolved/closed.
- If the review is started, then no timeout applies and the full
review cycle should be followed until a reasonable version of the
change has been accepted. At which point it can be committed and the
Jira resolved/closed.

>
>
> *NOTE*: We can have a FishEye setup from Atlassian for better code
> review and managing review requests as well. If that OK I can start
> the request for Sqoop repository.

I am not sure what FishEye is and how does that work with ReviewBoard.
In the past we have extensively used ReviewBoard for review requests
and I think most of the committers are comfortable with it. Given
this, do you think it would benefit us in any way to move to a new
system?


Thanks,
Arvind

>
> Thoughts :) ?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Ahmed Radwan <ahmed@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks Arvind,
>>>
>>> I prefer RTC with timeout. If we decide on timeout, what is the suitable
>>> timeout period and how can we manage it for different patches (some patches
>>> may require more time than others for review)? Is the timeout measured from
>>> review submission or from last activity on the review? Any ideas?
>>
>> Good point Ahmed. I don't think there is any one scheme that will
>> address all such concerns. Given that someone may view a change as
>> trivial but it may be very complex for someone else, I think that the
>> idea of a set timeout will not be fair in all cases.
>>
>> Another option to consider is to be like Hive project, where a
>> committer's patch must be +1'd by another committer who actually
>> commits it. For patches coming from non-committers, any committer who
>> reviews it can commit it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arvind
>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Ahmed
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> We are starting to see some traction in JIRA and patch activity. I
>>>> believe now is a good time for us to put a formal policy in place that
>>>> guides the overall review and commit process. Different projects have
>>>> adopted different ways of addressing this, but at a high level there
>>>> are two - Review-Then-Commit (RTC) style, and Commit-Then-Review
>>>> (CTR).
>>>>
>>>> Lets discuss this to bring out various point of views and then do a
>>>> formal vote on the candidate policy that is acceptable to the
>>>> majority.
>>>>
>>>> My thoughts: I prefer RTC with timeout provisions. Specifically, I
>>>> feel that every change must get reviewed and if the reviewers do not
>>>> respond within a certain time, the change can be committed.
>>>>
>>>> Please share your thoughts, comments and concerns on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Arvind
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>   Author of (WebSphere Application Server Community Edition 2.0 User Guide)
>   http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247585.html
> - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
> - Blog: http://tadabborat.blogspot.com
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein
>
> "Writing clean code is what you must do in order to call yourself a
> professional. There is no reasonable excuse for doing anything less
> than your best."
> - Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
>
> "Stay hungry, stay foolish."
> - Steve Jobs
>

Mime
View raw message