sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohammad Nour El-Din <nour.moham...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RTC / CTR
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:13:02 GMT
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with this modified approach, but there is only one drawback
which is in case of a patch submitted by a non-committer, in some
situations which I saw in other projects, patches taking too much of
time to be reviewed and committed might be a negative factor for
attracting new contributors, which will put some more responsibility
on committers to take care of that.

>> *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?

I am not sure, I didn't use ReviewBoard and I used to use FishEye at
work and it was perfect. But as long as people already feel
comfortable with using ReviewBoard I don't think we need to move to

> 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

- Mohammad Nour
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein

View raw message