Sounds good to me Jakob =) I think its just a matter of perception what considered as trivial. For me it was changes that wont make any behavior change.
As for reviews site, I was not implying that it should be mandatory. It helps when reviewing large changes. LIke Jakob said, JIRA case is still needed and if he/she wants to use reviews site then it could added to JIRA. If "trivial" means size of changes, I am 100% support. - Henry On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jakob Homan <[email protected]> wrote: > So, the commit in question as a diff comes out to about 4,200 lines: > [email protected] s018 /tmp/k2/kafka> svn diff -cr1156232 | wc -l > 4160 > > To me, regardless of how the diff was created, this disqualifies it > from being a trivial change, particularly since it was done via > automation, which tends to be the source of many unintended > consequences. But of course, it's possible to make a huge change via > a single line, so defining trivial just by size alone is not > sufficient. For me, 'trivial' changes are one-line spelling fixes, > quick commits to get the build compiling again due to a syntax error, > or adding a single license header to a file. > > Re: reviewboard. Having done hundreds of patch reviews in Apache and > now being required to use RB as a Hive contributor, I very much > dislike it. It adds an extra level of paperwork to each patch, > clutters the JIRA with impossible-to-trace comments from rb, and can > inadvertently lead to the wrong patch being committed (see HIVE-2276 > for an example). We've reached a happy medium in Hadoop where, those > who would like a review via RB can open one a request, but it's not > required and the reviewers are free to just post their comments within > the JIRA itself. > -Jakob > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> I just got "pinged" by Jakob about the RTC =) >> >> I am not sure how strict we want to impose this rule? >> >> What considered as trivial changes? I guess if we want to strictly >> impose this we should sign up to https://reviews.apache.org/ for Kafka >> to help review the patch and diff. >> >> We use the reviews site for Apache Shindig and Gora. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> - Henry >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Jun Rao <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, Everyone, >>> >>> I propose that we use the "review then commit" process for future changes in >>> Kafka. Other than trivial changes, all patches will be reviewed in JIRA. Any >>> objections to this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jun >>> >> >
