2 days may be too short… One can submit all the patches on Friday night and commit on Sunday ;)
On 16/4/11, 17:43, "Prasanth Jayachandran" <pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >Also, it will be good to add “NO PRECOMMIT TESTS” in the description of >the jira >if the patches are really small and does not affect any tests >(checkstyles, typos etc.) >to avoid occupying a slot in the precommit queue which could be >overloaded sometimes. > >+1 for 2 days no response on dev-list. > >Thanks >Prasanth > >> On Apr 11, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> >>> Maybe the process can be to solicit reviews for such minor patches by >>> sending an email to dev@ list and if no response is seen in 2 days, go >>> ahead and commit it ? >>> >> >> Two days seems reasonable, perhaps excluding weekends and major >>holidays. >> >> -- Lefty >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> I agree we have a problem here. At least patches as small as this >>> shouldn't take too long to get reviewed. >>> >>> Knox seems to consider a very large set of patches as being under CTR >>> process. >>> I think hive is very large and mature project that I would lean >>> towards RTC process for most issues. I think we can make an exception >>> for very minor patches such as fixing typos and and checkstyle issues. >>> Maybe the process can be to solicit reviews for such minor patches by >>> sending an email to dev@ list and if no response is seen in 2 days, go >>> ahead and commit it ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've been a long-time contributor to Hive (5 or so years) and have >>>>been >>>> voted in as a committer and I'm very grateful for that. I also >>>>understand >>>> that my situation is different than most or lots of committers as I'm >>>>not >>>> working for one of the big companies (Facebook, Cloudera, Hortonworks >>> etc.) >>>> where you can just ask someone sitting next to you to do a review. >>>> >>>> I'd really like to contribute more than I do currently but the >>>>process of >>>> getting patches in is painful for me (and other 'outside' >>>>contributors) >>> as >>>> it is hard to get reviews & things committed. The nature of most of my >>>> patches is very minor[1] (fixing typos, checkstyle issues etc.) and I >>>> understand that these are not the most interesting patches to review >>>>and >>>> are easy to miss. I don't blame anyone for this situation as I totally >>>> understand it and have been on the other side of this for other >>>>projects. >>>> >>>> Is there anything we can do to make it easier for me and others like >>>>me >>> to >>>> contribute here? I absolutely see the value in having "cleaner" code >>>>and >>>> when done in small batches it's usually not very disruptive either. >>>> >>>> The bylaws currently require a +1 from a committer who has not >>>>authored >>> the >>>> patch. Knox for example has a different policy [2] where they >>>>distinguish >>>> between major features and minor things which can be committed freely. >>>> >>>> Hive could adopt something similar or like a middle ground. These are >>> just >>>> two suggestions: >>>> >>>> 1) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) without >>> requiring >>>> an extra +1 >>>> 2) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) with Lazy >>> approval >>>> (i.e. wait 24 hours) >>>> >>>> Sorry for the long rant but I'd love some feedback on this and am >>>>looking >>>> forward to contributing more in the future. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Lars >>>> >>>> [1] e.g. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12467> >>>> [2] < >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process> >>> >
