Hi, I agree with the list of trivial things that Jacob listed.
For the license header change that Henry made, I probably would consider it a trivial change. However, maybe it's a good idea to list the change to be made in the jira first. Jun On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >>> > >> > > >
