Okay I have started a VOTE thread on the user@ mailing list (as per the bylaws). I would appreciate it if you could head over there and vote :)
Thank you! On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the +1 Alan. > > I agree that we're leaving potential contributions on the floor. Doing > more reviews is definitely a very good step in the right direction. Thank > you! I see this Bylaws change as another (small) step in the right > direction. I'm sure we can come up with more ideas. > > I'll start a VOTE thread on the user@ mailing list. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I’m +1 on this change of allowing simple cleanup changes without >> requiring a full review. >> >> But jumping to this fix obscures a bigger problem we have as a >> community. This fix only works for committers, not for non-committers who >> may also contribute such patches. And it doesn’t solve the situation for >> non-trivial patches. We’re leaving potential contributions on the floor >> and keeping people out of our community. We need to solve this. >> >> One thing I’ve been doing over the last few months is set up a filter in >> JIRA for components that I know well (metastore, acid, etc.) and then put a >> recurring task in my task tracker app to review a patch every day. >> Realistically I manage 2-3 reviews a week, but that’s 1-2 more than I was >> doing before. I encourage my fellow committers to find something that >> works for them. We need to improve the health of our community. >> >> Alan. >> >> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 07:56, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Thejas for the suggestion & others for jumping in. That seems >> fine >> > for me. 2 days also seems good. Holidays are different in almost every >> > country so I wouldn't exclude those. >> > >> > I have followed the procedure used for the last Bylaws change and >> created a >> > new Wiki page here: < >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Proposed+Changes+to+Hive+Project+Bylaws+-+April+2016 >> >> . >> > >> > It includes this paragraph: "Minor issues (e.g. typos, code style >> issues, >> > JavaDoc changes. At committer's discretion) can be committed after >> > soliciting feedback/review on the mailing list and not receiving >> feedback >> > within 2 days." >> > I'm not a native speaker so feedback is welcome. >> > >> > I also fixed three typos in the Bylaws (and marked them as changed): < >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=62691925&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2 >> >> >> > >> > Once the discussion settles down I'll open a vote thread on the user@ >> > mailing list which requires a 2/3 majority of all active PMC members. I >> > couldn't find a definition of "active" though. >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:26 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> >> >> >> >> >
