spot-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Zeolla <JonZeo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] PR voting process changes
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:51:46 GMT
I agree, at least one +1 from a committer as a minimum bar is pretty
reasonable.  For bigger changes usually having more people review and test
makes sense, but I've seen that handled as more of a one off.

I'm usually in favor of a 24 hour wait as well, but could see it go either
way here.

Jon

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 16:44 <jarcec@apache.org> wrote:

> I would recommend to make contributing to Spot as easily as possible
> because any hurdle or obstacle will make contributing harder and thus will
> discourage potential long term contributors.
>
> Pretty much all other projects that I’m involved with at ASF are following
> something in the lines of what Nate is describing. Anyone on the internet
> can submit a patch and all it takes is a single committer who does review
> and then the patch is merged to master branch. Some projects do a “cool
> off" window before the “review” and “merge” to make sure that other
> committers have time to jump in - projects like Hadoop and Hive tend to
> give 24 hours, projects like Sqoop or Flume simply commit immediately. Any
> other committer however have always a chance to jump in and pretty much
> VETO the patch — provided there is a good explanation for the push back.
>
> Jarcec
>
> > On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Michael Ridley <mridley@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like a good approach.  I'm all in favor of following a process
> that
> > works for other ASF projects.
> >
> > Speaking of votes by committer, I think any vote would be recorded as
> > binding or non-binding based on committer status.  I am not a committer
> so
> > I always make sure to mark mine as non-binding.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Nate Smith <natedogs911@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Also,
> >>
> >> As a point of consideration it's good to highlight that in such a
> scenario
> >> where a +1 is given and 48 hours to review prior to merge, any -1 should
> >> reset the vote in my mind. Votes of such nature would have to be
> restricted
> >> to committers on the project.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Nate Smith <nathanael@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> From my own experience and also in talking directly with a few
> committers
> >>> to the project the requirement for three +1's from committers should be
> >>> reviewed.
> >>>
> >>> My understanding is that other projects in the ASF simply require one
> >> vote
> >>> and provide some time for review by others prior to merging (such as a
> >>> 24-48 hour period). However more emphasis is placed on refining code in
> >>> preparation for releases.
> >>>
> >>> As it stands today we require at least three +1's before merge, and
> there
> >>> is no time requirement.
> >>>
> >>> Since we are a growing community, and the goal is to develop more code
> >>> contributors I think it is important to bring this up for review in
> hopes
> >>> that we can adopt something that allows faster iterations with a strong
> >>> focus on polishing for future releases.
> >>>
> >>> - Nathanael
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Ridley <mridley@cloudera.com>
> > office: (650) 352-1337
> > mobile: (571) 438-2420
> > Senior Solutions Architect
> > Cloudera
>
> --

Jon

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