BUMP. Hey Guys,
We have a lot of new people in the community these days; this seems like an important exercise to ensure that we're all on the same page, whether that ends up simply re-signing up to the existing practices or evolving them. _personally_ I'd like the conditions to be more explicit that there needs to be some independent verification that the change does what it's supposed to (and doesn't do anything that it's not supposed to). It looks to me that sometimes passing regression tests is seen as the change has been tested. IMO regression test passing is a prerequisite of a PR being ready for anyone other than the author(s) to start reviewing the PR. Cheers Paul. paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue -----Original Message----- From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> Sent: 02 October 2019 12:37 To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Subject: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL]merge policy ratification LS, in the past we had set a set of rules in the community under which PR could be merged. I want to reiterate them here as it seems we are kind of slacking. Please chime in if there are any issues or omissions: For a PR to be merged it has to adhere to the following conditions: - In any case -- A PR has to have had two approving reviews -- A PR has to have no outstanding requests for changes. A request for changes is regarded no longer outstanding if the requester stops responding on the PR discussions. -- A PR has to have a review with verification description. Depending on the type of PR this can be a test description, an automated test included, screenshots in case of UI changes. If it is a tetual change it must be verified to not apply to logs or events. - any commiter can merge a PR if it adheres to those conditions -- unless a freeze has been called by a the branch it is to be merged on by a community appointed release manager for that branch hope this is short and complete enough at the same time. It has been agreed upon in the past but I am too lazy to find the mail thread in the archives. If anyone disagrees we'll have to go there. They seem reasonable and self-evident to me. I am also not sure if these should be stated in bylaws or on github, so comments in that respect are welcome as well. Let's first again agree on them. regards, -- Daan
