Hi Ralph, On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I meant to post a few days ago as I very much dislike the email > traffic in this list. In all the projects I participate on I separate Jira > messages out and place them in their own folder so that I can more easily > follow the human generated traffic. Unfortunately, it seems that I can't > really do that in this list because the review messages show up such that > they are indistinguishable from a normal reply. In fact, once I replied > before I realized I needed to go into the review to make the comment. In > addition, I believe all of these also appear in the Jira issue and email. > The end result is I end up deleting a lot of emails without reading them but > I'm unsure if I'm missing something I should have looked at. Also, the review > tool seems to cause way more emails than I am used to from other projects. >
Not sure if you are suggesting that the excessive email traffic comes in the way of you participating in code reviews. If so, how do you suggest we fix it? > Just to put this in perspective, I follow over 30 mailing lists plus my > normal work email. I get several hundred emails a day from the ASF so > anything that can be done to improve this is a big help. > I am sure many of us are in the same boat and have worked out solutions that cater to individual needs. Personally, I use filters a lot but that may or may not work for all. Thanks, Arvind > Ralph > > > > > On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >>> I just checked out Flume and the build is broken. >> >> Are you sure the build is broken? It seems to work fine for me at >> revision 1296578 - which is the last revision based on my commit of >> FLUME-978. See the build log below: >> >> http://pastebin.com/RNq4gFGX >> >>> ... The hudson job seems to >>> be largely ignored. >> >> I disagree. It is on our list of things to do and there is a jira to >> track it. See: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-974 >> >>> ... I want to stress that code reviews aren't just for >>> show; we should actually review the code. >> >> +1 on the idea that code reviews aren't just for show. -1 for the >> implied accusation that we are not doing it. I don't think any one of >> us in this community takes it lightly. As with anything, we can >> overlook something at times - and that is why the reviews are public >> so that others can jump in and help out. If you find something being >> overlooked, please point it out. >> >>> Some classes were removed (I >>> don't necessarily think it was a great idea, but that's another story) and >>> tests weren't updated and now they fail to compile. >> >> I am not sure why you are seeing this. Look at the build log above - I >> did a fresh checkout and everything compiles and tests correctly. Are >> you trying to compile a previous revision? If so - note that when I >> was committing FLUME-865, I accidentally did not checkin the newly >> added files (revision 1291612); realized the mistake in a few minutes >> and added the missing files (revision 1291613). I guess the only point >> where the build can break is if you checkout the earlier of these two >> revisions. If there are more places at various commits, please let me >> know. >> >> Thanks, >> Arvind >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Eric Sammer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All: >>> >>> I just checked out Flume and the build is broken. The hudson job seems to >>> be largely ignored. I want to stress that code reviews aren't just for >>> show; we should actually review the code. Some classes were removed (I >>> don't necessarily think it was a great idea, but that's another story) and >>> tests weren't updated and now they fail to compile. What bugs me more is >>> that this happend about 5 commits ago which means people aren't running the >>> tests at all nor are they validating the patches they commit. >>> >>> If you make a change to the code base and you only run the tests you care >>> about, you're defeating one of the main purposes of unit testing; to ensure >>> there are no unintended consequences of the changes. >>> >>> Please be vigilant. People trust their data to Flume and we shouldn't take >>> that lightly. It's critical that with all the new committers joining the >>> project and the pace of development that we not go feature crazy and get >>> right back to where the 0.9.x branch was. I will continue to be a pain the >>> ass about this. :) >>> >>> Thanks. >>> -- >>> Eric Sammer >>> twitter: esammer >>> data: www.cloudera.com >
