On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:44, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> > wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:16 +0000, ant elder wrote: > >> >> so about 6 months ago to try to help with problems they were having, > >> >> and since then 99% of the commits have been made by only two people. > >> > > >> > I assume you're referring to Jonathan Ellis and myself, and I'm not > sure > >> > that's exactly fair. There are only 4 active committers, and of the 4, > >> > Jonathan and I spend the most time committing patches contributed by > >> > people who can't, and quite often the "review" was conducted by > someone > >> > else who doesn't have commit rights and we are simply acting as a > proxy. > >> > This results in a lot of svn commits made by us, for contributions > that > >> > are not technically ours. > >> > > >> > As a convention, we typically put something like "Patch by $author; > >> > reviewed by $reviewer for $issue_id" in the change description. I just > >> > went through the commits scraping out those messages and it looks like > >> > Jonathan and I account for a little more than 60%, not 99%. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Eric Evans > >> > eev...@rackspace.com > >> > > >> > >> So about 40% of the committed code is coming from others and reviewed > >> by others - great - why not make some of those others committers? > >> > >> > > That's pretty much what they're doing about right now but as you know, it > > takes some time to establish a good patch history. I really don't thin > > Cassandra should be accused of being bad at attracting and voting in new > > committers. Given how they started they're definitely better at it than > most > > podlings. > > Easy there... nobody is accusing anybody of anything. > > Ah, sorry if that came across too strongly, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant that I haven't seen a problem in the way Cassandra was attracting committers. So that was definitely discussion as well on my side :) Matthieu > You asked a question, and people have answered. Some of those answers > have come with concerns. That generates discussion. > > I think it is good for any project to review why it is operating > *differently* than the majority of projects here at the ASF. Why is it > "special"? Are those special considerations actually masking a problem > underneath? Are those special processes going to hinder the free and > inclusive participation and community-building that we like to see in > our projects? > > It's fair to ask those questions, especially of a podling. But please > don't misconstrue discussion as accusation. > > Cheers, > -g >
