Clearly we cannot get all the changes required for HA into 23. We would like to
get some changes in that will
allow one to build a HA solution before a 23.x release.
What we want to discuss is what are the changes worth getting in into the
current 0.23.
Further many of the changes are
What is the policy for cleansing the PMC and marking them as emeritus?
How much dead weight does there need to be before it gets pruned?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 20:28, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org wrote:
What is the policy for cleansing the PMC and marking them as emeritus?
How much dead weight does there need to be before it gets pruned?
Other PMCs I've been on, have dealt with this by contacting all PMC
members
Sorry for the late reply...
My concern is not about creating a branch. Using a branch is some thing
we have been doing for a long time for feature development and it is
effective. Infact I am eager for branch for HA to be created, to start
submitting the patches I am currently working on.
Here
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
I also have concerns. While those working on the 1073 branch haven't
abused the commit-then-review process, the fact remains that the final
merge to trunk is equivalent to a 1.3MB patch that makes far-reaching
changes to the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Suresh Srinivas sur...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Sorry for the late reply...
My concern is not about creating a branch. Using a branch is some thing
we have been doing for a long time for feature development and it is
effective. Infact I am eager for branch for
Eli wrote:
Each change was done individually with it's own jira, patch, and
review. People can review the sub-tasks if they don't want to look at
the entire patch. The majority of the changes were reviewed before
they were committed, when that wasn't the case review feedback was
incorporated
On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
The question at hand is does the community want to go ahead with the
1073 model, or not? My preference is not, but since some in the
community like it, I'd suggest making a small tweak to bring it closer
in line with the intent of our bylaws,
On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
However, blocking RTC en-masse is just counter-productive. We should let
folks doing the work decide how best they want to do the work.
To be clear: I support RTC for trunk and more stringent reviews for merge.
Yet, all these need to be
Deep sigh. I'm not blocking RTC on the branch. The branch maintainer
gets to decide that. I'm not personally a big fan of it, but since
it's not my branch, it's not my call.
Either way the final patch to trunk goes
by the normal rules that any patch to trunk follows.
This is where I
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Deep sigh. I'm not blocking RTC on the branch. The branch maintainer
gets to decide that. I'm not personally a big fan of it, but since
it's not my branch, it's not my call.
Either way the final patch to trunk goes
by
s/RTC/CTR/g. oy.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Deep sigh. I'm not blocking RTC on the branch. The branch maintainer
gets to decide that. I'm not personally a big fan of it, but since
it's not my branch, it's not my call.
Either way the final patch to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Deep sigh. I'm not blocking RTC on the branch. The branch maintainer
gets to decide that. I'm not personally a big fan of it, but since
it's not my
As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk.
The rationale:
Feature branches are often created in order that developers can
iterate quickly without
To clarify, is there any restriction on who may give the +1s? For example,
if a branch has a group of 5 committers primarily authoring the patches, can
the three +1s be made by a subset of those committers?
-Todd
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
As
That's certainly not the intention, although I note that the current
+1 requirement on code changes would apparently allow a committer to
+1 h{is,er} own patch:
A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a
committer. This includes source code, documentation, website content,
etc.
+1 Sounds good to me.
Something like the following?
Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
==
pLazy consensus of active committers, but with a minimum of
-one +1. The code can be
+1 to Eli's wording.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 Sounds good to me.
Something like the following?
Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
==
+1 from me as well.
Thanks for running this vote, Jakob.
Aaron
On Jul 11, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to Eli's wording.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 Sounds good to me.
Something like the following?
Index:
+1
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 from me as well.
Thanks for running this vote, Jakob.
Aaron
On Jul 11, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to Eli's wording.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins
+1
Arun
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk.
The rationale:
Feature branches are
+1
mahadev
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
+1
Arun
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
of
Sounds fine to me. +1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Mahadev Konar maha...@hortonworks.comwrote:
+1
mahadev
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
+1
Arun
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
As discussed in the recent thread
+1 from me.
24 matches
Mail list logo
