well,I am very willing to learn more in the new PR，I've recently begun using IoTDB, and I'm truly sorry for any inconvenience caused due to my lack of familiarity with open-source projects as it's my first time participating. However, IoTDB has indeed played a significant role in my project. Wishing IoTDB all the best and continue to thrive
At 2023-11-01 16:01:16, "Xiangdong Huang" <saint...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I read the discussion and all related issues/pull requests, and give >some of my comments: > >It is appreciated for cqzhang's contribution to iotdb, especially for >the detailed bug feedback. This is the best contribution to the open >source community. > >Being a TLP open source project of Apache Software Foundation, keeping >diversity is the community's goal. >Therefore, attracting more and more contributors contributing to IoTDB >is what we always want. > >I have to say comments like "this issue may not be suitable for a >newer to our system due to communication costs of these complicated >cases" is ABSOLUTLY incorrect. It is very very harmful for the >community. >"newer" does not mean he/she knows little than "older", and does not >mean his/her solution is worse than "older". >However, "meritocracy" still takes effect, because hearing a person >whom has make some successful experience is usual correct. > >The only way we need to obey is: accepting better quality of codes, >which we still need to improve. >For example, I find cqzhang gave a solution like "using 12 months to >replace 1 year", which is accpeted in the final PR. This is a kind of >contribution. >In the closed PR (#11171), the most important shortcoming is lack of UT and >IT. >In the merged PR(#11323), it also has drawbacks, e.g., >"DateTimeUtils.convertDurationStrToLong()" function semantic is still >incorrect if the input parameter value is "y". > >Considering making it easy to let more developers join us, I advocate that: >1. For each public issue in Github/JIRA, claim you are working on it >to let all others knowing that. If some other person think he/she >want to take over, please also claims it asap, rather than submit PR >directly. >2. Even though, the cases that two PRs solve the same issue may still >occur. In this case, "better code wins" and meritocracy are still the >best way. > >Best, > >----------------------------------- >Xiangdong Huang >School of Software, Tsinghua University > > > >Weihao Li <18110526...@163.com> 于2023年10月31日周二 15:11写道： >> >> Hi cqzhang7, >> As you can see, `not supporting group by nature year` and `not supporting >> mixed units in group by` are two separate issues. >> 1. For the first issue, we have discussed in >> https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/11309, and the final PR was appended on >> the discuss. >> 2. For the second issue, your general idea is right, but there are still too >> many other cases need to be considered, like us and ns time precision. After >> discuss, we think this issue may not be suitable for a newer to our system >> due to communication costs of these complicated cases. You can see the final >> PR about this issue https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/11429. >> Thanks for your issues and perfect fix ideas about them, maybe we can start >> from some easy issues. Welcome to continue to contribute to IoTDB. >> >> >> >> At 2023-10-31 10:50:50, "张" <m18392456...@163.com> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> I am writing to share my experiences and concerns regarding my contributions >> to IoTDB. I appreciate your time in reading this and hope that my feedback >> will be taken constructively. >> >> >> Here is my experience when submitting pr to apache IoTDB: >> On 2023/09/13, I used iotdb at work and found a little problem with group by >> year, so I submitted issues https://github.com/apache/iotdb/issues/11133 >> On 2023/09/18, After this I submitted a useless PR >> https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/11171 without reading the source code >> or testing it myself, it was really the first time I submitted a PR for an >> open source component, but fortunately @HTHou viewed the PR and still >> replied to me, so I decided to read the source code and fix the issues. I >> realized that iotdb currently does not support the "1mo1d" scenario based on >> group by nature month. So I decided to try to finish this part as well. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2023/10/11, After reading the source code, I found new bugs >> https://github.com/apache/iotdb/issues/11286, I was motivated to fix them >> and work on them over and over again, trying to do my best to make it >> better, and then I submitted a new PR >> https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/11290, expecting anyone to give better >> suggestions. However, I found that IoTDB doesn't seem to welcome PRs from >> the outside, because I have been paying attention to this matter in the past >> few days, and for internal PRs, It's always handled in a timely manner, >> while for PRs from the outside, it seems to be another kind of attitude. >> After I asked to the relevant people in the community WeChat group, someone >> did review it on the same day, but after I replied to them one by one, there >> was no more responses. >> It's now October 31st, 2023, and another two weeks have passed. This >> discrepancy in response time and engagement deeply concerns me. I fail to >> understand why there is such a distinction between internal and external >> contributions. I believe that this disparity could have a detrimental impact >> on the promotion and adoption of IoTDB. People who face similar experiences >> might have a hard time recommending IoTDB to his friends. >> >> >> I kindly request that you address this issue and ensure that external >> contributors receive fair and timely feedback. A more inclusive and >> responsive approach will not only enhance the reputation of IoTDB but also >> encourage more active participation from the open-source community. >> >> >> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response >> and hope for a positive resolution. >> >> >> Best regards
