ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process
Date Fri, 04 Mar 2016 04:03:19 GMT
+1 on Raul’s proposal.
-Roman
 

    On Friday, March 4, 2016 2:47 AM, Raul Kripalani <raulk@apache.org> wrote:
 

 I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic
modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark,
ignite-hadoop, ignite-indexing, etc.

But it seems counterproductive to impose strict RTC for modules like
ignite-kafka, ignite-flume, ignite-twitter, ignite-camel, etc. If someone
changes a log in ignite-camel, I beg them not to wait for me (as the
expert) to review it. If the change is larger, I expect them to ping me for
a review *motu proprio*. Equally, it makes little sense for me to submit
for review a change I am personally making to ignite-camel: no one is going
to be interested in taking up this review and it'll probably end up in the
tail of their workqueue – likely just delaying the commit.

To sum up, my proposal:

* RTC for core, complex and strategic modules (community defines a finite
list).
* RTC or CTR, at committer's discretion, for other modules – with a
criteria of personal accountability and rationality.
* CTR for contributors for all modules, for obvious reasons (no commit
access ;-)).

Cheers,

*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
Blog: raul.io | twitter: @raulvk <https://twitter.com/raulvk>

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the
> functionality, RTC makes sense.
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Raul Kripalani <raulk@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I thought we were already on RTC process.
> >
> > What do you mean with contributors following this process?
> >
> > Raúl.
> > On 3 Mar 2016 11:54, "Denis Magda" <dmagda@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This
> > process
> > > has to be followed by both contributors and committers.
> > >
> > > There is a reason for this I have in mind. Ignite is a complex platform
> > > with several big modules. Some of the people may be experts in module A
> > > while others in module B etc.
> > > If a committer, who is good in module A, makes changes in module B
> > merging
> > > the changes without a review this can break module's B internal
> > > functionality that the committer didn't take into account.
> > >
> > > My proposal is to introduce a list of maintainers for every Ignite
> module
> > > like it's done in Spark [1] and a rule that will require a committer to
> > get
> > > an approval from a module maintainer before merging changes.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers#Committers-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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