I have to agree with your sentiments. I don't want to overstate it - I'm involved with several OSS projects myself - but it does seem that ZooKeeper needs either more committers or more engagement from the existing committers. It's been very difficult to get traction on issues recently. I've had to be a pest to get responses. To be fair, if you keep at it eventually there is a response but I think it should be easier. To be clear, I know from personal experience how hard this is given that none of us get paid to do this and it's usually done in our spare time.
-Jordan > On Aug 16, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Dan Benediktson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi there, > > Does the Zookeeper project have any formal process for ensuring submitted > patches get reviewed and subsequently committed? > > About a week ago I again submitted a patch for > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2471. This is something > like the third time I've submitted a patch to Apache Zookeeper over the > past year, and none of them has ever been reviewed. While they have all > fixed real bugs we've seen in production while running Zookeeper, I have > never urgently needed them to be committed because we maintain a fork where > we have already taken the bug fixes we need, so I have been inclined to not > make a nuisance of myself and let the Zookeeper PMC decide the best course > of action, but this is honestly somewhat frustrating. I would much rather > run Apache Zookeeper than run a private fork of it, but given the > experience so far in pushing our patches upstream and the sheer number and > scope of patches we have, this is a pretty daunting thought right now. > > I realize this is a volunteer operation and that we all have day jobs, > but I feel like this situation needs some improvement. Would it be possible > for the committers to set up some sort of regular review cadence and > provide some sort of loose expected SLA for reviewing, and assuming review > is approved, subsequently committing, submitted patches? To be clear, I > don't want to push a lot of work or strict timelines or anything: like I > said, I realize this is a volunteer project and that we're all quite busy. > But if we could even get something like a 1-month intended SLA for > reviewing a submitted patch, and then a 1-month intended SLA for committing > after a patch was accepted in review, I think it would be hugely beneficial > for contributors. > > Thanks, > Dan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
