Jun is just far and away the best reviewer. So maybe we should just require that everybody get Jun to review their patches. :-)
Or, more practically, maybe Jun should put together some guidelines on what he does and we can try to emulate. -Jay On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Prashanth Menon <prashanth.men...@gmail.com>wrote: > +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 > > >> > > >
