On 27 May 2012 00:43, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > arvind - 116 commits - Cloudera > prasadm - 22 commits - Cloudera > brock - 16 commits - Cloudera > esammer - 4 commits - Cloudera > jarcec - 1 commit - AVG Technologies > juhanic - 1 commit - CyberAgent > > The only two non-Cloudera commits were pretty trivial changes (a > plugin version upgrade [3] and a spelling fix [4]). My earlier > classification of Flume as "ready to graduate" [5] was partially based > on these new committers from outside Cloudera, but the above data > suggests that they haven't been as active as I would have hoped. > > IIUC Flume operates under an RTC model where people are not supposed > to commit their own changes, which obviously makes the above data less > relevant for evaluating the true diversity of the community. However, > seeing only a single trivial commit by both jarcec and juhanic even > though they became committers already over three months ago does seem > to suggest that they may not be as comfortable in their committer role > as people from Cloudera are. > > Do you think this is a problem for the community? If yes, how do you > plan to fix it? If not, why? > > I think RTC is a barrier to expansion/participation. I understand why it is viewed as critical in the core codebase of Hadoop -it's a key piece of code for the big web companies- but do you need RTC on any project in incubation?
RTC creates a bias towards commits from organisations with >1 developer/committer, as its easier to ask a colleage over the desk to say "review this" than it is to stick something up and hope that it gets noticed by others.
