+1 on this, I like the idea of having a primary/secondary owner system for each component.
Thanks, Neha On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that's a good idea. It will be good to have at least 2 maintainers > per component. > > I'd encourage more people to review patches. The more patches one reviews, > the more familiar he/she is with the components. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> The number of developers and code base size for Kafka is getting larger. >> >> One way to help scale things gracefully would be to have an official idea >> of "subsystems" and have official maintainers for those. The duties of a >> maintainer would be >> 1. Be the final word on API design in that area >> 2. Ensure sufficient documentation and test coverage for that subsystem >> 3. Review all code changes in that sub-system area >> 4. Ensure that patches in that area get applied in a timely fashion >> >> In particular I think we could do a better job of getting patches in in a >> timely manner. >> >> Here are what I see as logically distinct systems or areas: >> >> - Producer (java and scala) >> - Consumer (java and scala) >> - Network layer (kafka.network.*) >> - Log (kafka.log.*) >> - Replication (controller, fetcher threads, hw mark stuff, etc) >> - Kafka API impl (basically just KafkaApi.scala) >> - Hadoop stuff >> - Perf tools and system tests >> - Misc other small things: metrics, utils, etc. >> >> Obviously many features will cut across these layers, but the idea is that >> by having a real owner that is responsible for that area we will get higher >> quality. >> >> I think we are doing this informally already, but making it formal would >> help ensure you knew the right people to get input from. I think it >> probably wouldn't make sense to start doing this until post-0.8 since we >> are in the middle of so many things right now, but I wanted to see what >> people thought...? >> >> -Jay >>
