metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Request for Consensus Approval] dev branch for Stellar additional work
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2017 13:28:29 GMT
Just want to say, we will need updated versions of the commuter’s guide for
doing commits and reviews to branches like this.
The current scripts we use will need to be updated ( as we go ), the we
should at least have a plan to provide these guides before the first pr.



On July 5, 2017 at 04:40:16, Matt Foley (mattf@apache.org) wrote:

Now that METRON-877 is in, I would like to proceed with Steps 3-6 of the
remaining work to separate out Stellar functionality as an independent
module. A couple people have suggested that this further development should
be done in a Metron “dev branch”, where:
a) changes are more visible than in a single person’s private development
branch, and
b) work can proceed for several days or a couple weeks on a branch that the
collaborators may choose to keep stable for the duration (ie, without
constantly updating to master).

This concept was discussed as a “speculative branch” in this email thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/391e15347ad625c4aa61e81f5dd238c0acb4048b8d77f93313298263@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
but I don’t see that we ever actually changed our bylaws to mention it.

Nevertheless, it falls within the purview of the PMC to create new branches
in our code tree, and I request PMC members to give me a lazy consensus
vote to do so. Please +1 this email if you agree.

The proposed rules of engagement are (drawn from issues raised in that
email thread):
1. Commits to this branch to have the same rules as to master: Jira, PR,
and at least one +1 from a knowledgeable reviewer, and no -1’s.
2. +1 reviews may come from any participating contributor, not only current
committers. But commits still have to be made by a committer, so we don’t
have to create new auth infra for this branch.
3. The branch should be updated from master at least every second week, or
more frequently. This may be adjusted to avoid disruption of work in
progress.
4. PR’s to master will be posted for review as soon as self-consistent
chunks of useful functionality are done. The collaborators will define
those chunks, but a rough goal is every two weeks. The goal is to avoid
mega-patches to review.
5. PR’s to master will be posted by a single developer from their home
github repo, not directly from the speculative branch, so that
collaborative work can proceed on the speculative branch.
6. The PR’s will be credited equally to all collaborators active during
that “chunk” of work.
7. PR’s to master have to be reviewed and agreed to as though they were new
patches. (The fact they were previously accepted into the speculative
branch is at most a recommendation, not an a priori decision to let them
into master.) The usual rules apply. While collaborators will likely want
to +1 such PRs, sufficient time must be provided for other community
members to review and raise issues.

Thanks,
--Matt

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message