spot-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cesar Berho <ce...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] PR voting process changes
Date Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:59:50 GMT
+1  on the 48 hrs period.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Gonzalez, Victor <
victor.gonzalez@intel.com> wrote:

> +1 with 48 hours period
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 21, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jon Zeolla <JonZeolla@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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