+1 from me on the maintainer system and having a primary/secondary for components.
I also think we should try as much as possible to get at least two reviewers for patches that come in. This is something I'm very guilty of and am trying to correct. I get the feeling Jun is overwhelmed with patch reviews :) - Prashanth On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com>wrote: > +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 > >> >
