Hi, Thanks for your feedback of this contribution! I support to give more attention for each PR and do more communication. Besides, if you have a PR need to be reviewed or just want to do a modification, welcome to discuss in the mail list.
Thanks, ————————————————— Jialin Qiao Apache IoTDB PMC 张 <m18392456...@163.com> 于2023年11月3日周五 18:25写道： > After reading PR#11429, upon comparing my PR, it does have more > advantageous aspects from which I have greatly benefited. However, I need > to point out something that I find 'unfair' in the process. > > *First of all*, my PR was committed on Oct 12, 2023, and no one followed > up on it before I asked. > > > *The second key point *is that no one gave useful advice on where I > should make modifications or the aspects I might have overlooked. Thus, I > didn't have the opportunity to make better revisions... > > At the same time, I must clarify that due to my limited familiarity with > IoTDB, the principle I followed during the modification process was 'to > avoid making significant changes to the existing logic as much as > possible.' Therefore, I attempted to make only necessary adjustments based > on the existing source code. This is evident to anyone who carefully reads > my commits. However, this might not be a good solution in open-source PRs. > > I acknowledge that my PR might be "worse code". Nevertheless, I still hope > that in future PR reviews for IoTDB, if possible, reviewers will carefully > review the code. Even if the PR is truly subpar, reviewers should provide > feedback. This would be incredibly helpful for the person because they > would know where their issues lie. > > The above is what I want to express. I hope that the "processing" will be > more warming in the future. > > Best regards > > > 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 > >
