A model that has worked well for HBase is large feature development on a separate branch, followed by a process to do a branch merge back to the main project. The big upside is feature developers have near total freedom. The big downside is the merge can take a while to review/approve and rebasing the code to land the feature is a lot of last minute work and the merge can temporarily destabilize both the feature and the main project. On balance, the freedom to do independent feature development without impacting the main project makes it worth it, IMHO.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Jan Fernando <jferna...@salesforce.com> wrote: > Lars, > > I think these are really awesome guidelines. As Phoenix reaches a new phase > of maturity and operational complexity (which is really exciting and > important for the project IMHO), I think these things are becoming even > more important. > > Re #5, I agree we need to err on the side of stability. I agree if features > are there in main and documented people will use them. However, right now > it's hard for users of the Phoenix to discern which features are mature > versus which features may still need hardening at scale. I think it might > help to actually come up with a more standardized process for developing > "beta" or new high impact features. Perhaps we can follow what other > projects like HBase do. For example: Should big changes be in their own > branch? In some cases we have done things like this in Phoenix (e.g. > Calcite) and in others we have not (e.g. transaction support). I think > consistency would be really helpful. > > So, what should the guidelines be on when to create a new branch and when > to merge into the main branch? Is this a good model? I think getting input > from HBase committers on this thread on what has worked and what hasn't > would be great so we don't reinvent the wheel. > > I think something like this could help ensure that is main is stable and > always ready for prime time and make it easier for developers to discern > which are "beta" features that they can use at their discretion. > > Thanks, > --Jan > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lars, > > > > This is a great list of guidelines. We should publish it on the > > contributing [0] section of the public site. > > > > -n > > > > [0]: http://phoenix.apache.org/contributing.html > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:12 PM lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Any comments?Is this simply not a concern? > > > -- Lars > > > From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > > > To: Dev <dev@phoenix.apache.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:22 AM > > > Subject: Fw: Phoenix code quality > > > > > > Hi all Phoenix developers, > > > here's a thread that I had started on the private PMC list, and we > agreed > > > to have this as a public discussion. > > > > > > > > > I'd like to solicit feedback on the 6 steps/recommendations below and > > > about we can ingrain those into the development process. > > > Comments, concerns, are - as always - welcome! > > > -- Lars > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > > > From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > > > To: Private <priv...@phoenix.apache.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 9:59 PM > > > Subject: Phoenix code quality > > > > > > Hi all, > > > I realize this might be a difficult topic, and let me prefix this by > > > saying that this is my opinion only. > > > Phoenix is coming to a point where big organizations are relying on it. > > > At Salesforce we do billions of Phoenix queries per day... And we had a > > > bunch of recent production issues - only in part caused by Phoenix. > > > > > > If there was a patch here and there that lacks quality, tests, > comments, > > > or proper documentation, then it's the fault of the person who created > > the > > > patch. > > > If, however, this happens with some frequency, then it a problem that > > > should involve PMC and committers who review and commit the patches in > > > question. > > > I'd like to suggest the following: > > > 1. Comments in the code should be considered when judging a patch for > its > > > merit. No need to go overboard, but there should be enough comments so > > that > > > someone new the code can get an idea about what this code is doing. > > > 2. Eyeball each patch for how it would scale. Will it all work on 1000 > > > machines? With 1bn rows? With 1000 indexes? etc, etc.If it's not > obvious, > > > ask the creator of the patch. Agree on what the scaling goals should > > > be.(For anything that works only for a few million rows or on a dozen > > > machines, nobody in their right mind would accept the complexity of > > running > > > Phoenix - and HBase, HDFS, ZK, etc - folks would and should simply use > > > Postgres.) > > > 3. Check how a patch will behave under failure. Machines failures are > > > common. Regions may not reachable for a bit, etc. Are there good > > timeouts? > > > Everything should gracefully continue to work. > > > > > > 4. Double check that tests check for corner conditions. > > > 5. Err on the side of stability, rather than committing a patch as > beta. > > > If it's in the code, people _will_ use it. > > > 6. Are all config options properly explained and make sense? It's > better > > > to err on the side of fewer config options. > > > > > > 7. Probably more stuff... > > > > > > Again. Just MHO. Many of these things are already done. But I still > > > thought might be good to have a quick discussion around this. > > > > > > Comments? > > > Thanks. > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
