Hi Jun, No problem, I am glad to help any way I can =)
+1 for using our best judgement. - Henry On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Jun Rao <[email protected]> wrote: > Henry, > > Yes, the definition of "trivial" is subjective. Personally, I think we > should just apply our best judgement. If unsure, it's better to have the > patch reviewed first. At the minimum, any trivial change should not break > compilation and unit tests. > > Thanks for volunteering to fix the header in all files. I appreciate it. > > Jun > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Henry Saputra > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> As Jun has also mentioned the concept of "trivial" is relative to each >> individual, unless we make it explicitly defined what considered >> trivial checkins. >> >> I understand Hadoop project is good example to follow but this is not >> Hadoop project. I disagree to bring Hadoop way of doing project unless >> approved by Kafka community. >> IMHO Hadoop MapReduce or HBase projects are already in a stable phase >> where every checkin need to be scrutinized to make sure it wont cause >> any regression. >> Apache Kafka on the other hand is just still in podling incubator >> which could benefited from welcoming env in building community to help >> move it to TLP. >> >> Like you just said even Hive impose RB which Hadoop MapReduce or Pig >> may not. So every ASF project can and will have its own rules and >> policies. >> >> I just want to remnd that Apache Software Foundation is more than >> Hadoop project, and Kafka podling should have its own policy based on >> background and opinion from its community instead of 100% refer back >> to how Hadoop work. >> >> Now, I would love to move on and help getting Kafka ready for prime time. >> >> - Henry >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jun Rao <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
