On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> In my opinion the correct approach is to identify the parts of the code that
> a)
> seem to be most susceptible to bugs, b) are hard to understand well, or c)
> where
> simple changes can have huge impacts on performance and then use RTC for
>
Virtually any project you look at is going to have portions that are fairly
complex and portions that are pretty straightforward. In my opinion the
correct approach is to identify the parts of the code that a) seem to be most
susceptible to bugs, b) are hard to understand well, or c) where simp
On 2 December 2015 at 23:04, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or
> > Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted
> to
> > stand up for “states' rights”, the
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or
> Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to
> stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to
> determine their own pro
Tom White wrote:
The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed
(http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about
CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a
binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different
communities have d
Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or Kudu,
and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to stand up
for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to determine their own
processes and cultures.
Julian
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 6:42 P
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> “No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit.
> It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review
> the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t
> build, whether they run th
“No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. It is each
committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review the change before
they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t build, whether they run
the test suite before committing.
This policy is the bare
Yeup!
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a
> particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might
> be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects for CTR, we
> might s
I am not sure what "start with no explicit commit policy" even means. Will
there be no commits, until the discussion on the subject happens?
How code changes will be going into the source base?
Cos
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:01AM, Tom White wrote:
> The vote to accept Impala into the incubator
+1 to this as well.
Whether the community changes its mind or not is irrelevant in my opinion.
What is important is it gets to choose for itself and possibly revisits
regularly as it sees fit.
This discussion should be encouraged and people who want to promote the
merits of one approach or another
What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a
particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might
be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects for CTR, we
might say "what can we do to limit the risk that RTC inhibits community
growth
Yeah, this is what I meant earlier. Leaving out a commit policy changes
nothing. The same people who put together the proposal will be the same set
as those discussing it as a podling, and they will reach the same
conclusion.
If the PPMC doubles in size, with fresh faces, then a real discussion ca
I agree that this is something the Impala community will want to discuss
fairly early on in incubation - along with a lot of other project
procedural stuff as we adjust or rethink our workflows to be Apache-Way
compatible.
Until we have that discussion, I'd expect Impala will continue along RTC
li
Nice +1 =)
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Tom White wrote:
> The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed
> (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about
> CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a
> binary choice, and that it's en
On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:01, Tom White
mailto:tomwh...@apache.org>> wrote:
The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed
(http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about
CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a
binary choice, and that it'
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Tom White wrote:
> ...I think Julian Hyde's suggestion that the Impala podling start with no
> explicit commit policy is a good one. Incubation should be used as a
> time to work out what works best for a project
Big +1
-Bertrand
The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed
(http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about
CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a
binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different
communities have different commit pol
18 matches
Mail list logo
