On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> We always needed another committer's +1 even if it isn't that clear in the > bylaws. In the minimum, we should codify this in the bylaws to avoid stuff > like people committing their own patches. > > Regarding trivial changes, I always distinguish between trivial *patches* > and trivial changes to *existing* patches. Patches even if trivial need to > be +1ed by another committer. OTOH, many a times, for patches that are > extensively reviewed, potentially for months on, I sometimes end up making > a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before > committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to > codify this distinction though. > In the past, I have made trivial (new lines, indentation, etc.) changes to well reviewed patches before committing. Even then, I believe we should upload the updated patch or the diff of trivial changes and wait for someone else (potentially a non-committer contributor) to quickly check to avoid making silly mistakes. > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > There were discussions on several jiras and threads recently about how > RTC > > actually works in Hadoop. > > My opinion has always been that for a patch to be committed it needs an > > approval (+1) of at least one committer other than the author and no > -1s. > > The Bylaws seem to be stating just that: > > "Consensus approval of active committers, but with a minimum of one +1." > > See the full version under Actions / Code Change > > <http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html#Decision+Making> > > > > Turned out people have different readings of that part of Bylaws, and > > different opinions on how RTC should work in different cases. Some of the > > questions that were raised include: > > - Should we clarify the Code Change decision making clause in Bylaws? > > - Should there be a relaxed criteria for "trivial" changes? > > - Can a patch be committed if approved only by a non committer? > > - Can a patch be committed based on self-review by a committer? > > - What is the point for a non-committer to review the patch? > > Creating this thread to discuss these (and other that I sure missed) > issues > > and to combine multiple discussions into one. > > > > My personal opinion we should just stick to the tradition. Good or bad, > it > > worked for this community so far. > > I think most of the discrepancies arise from the fact that reviewers are > > hard to find. May be this should be the focus of improvements rather than > > the RTC rules. > > > > Thanks, > > --Konst > > -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. -------------------------------------------- http://five.sentenc.es
