So, that would imply not acting on patches unless a committer has an interest in it, right? If a patch poster wants action and isn't getting it he/she would need to post on @dev to find a champion.
-JZ On Jun 3, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking with my Apache Accumulo hat on: > > Contributors will typically attach the patch to the corresponding Jira issue > or use review board [1] > > The patch, ignoring very trivial changes, will typically hang around for a > while (probably due to the time until a committer has a moment to look at it > -- I like to think this gives everyone a chance to look at the changes to > give feedback despite us being a CTR [2] project). A committer who is > comfortable with the changes will typically be the "champion" behind it to > ensure it's up to snuff (matches code-style, no compiler warnings, works as > intended, has tests, etc), apply it, and merge it to any other branches as > necessary. > > The only time a patch has come up for review/vote for us (as far as I > remember) is when the patch creates a controversial feature or there is > strong disagreement on the implementation of the changes. > > Hope that helps! > > [1] https://reviews.apache.org/dashboard/ > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview > > On 06/03/2013 05:08 PM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: >> ZooKeeper auto-applies patches. It's nice in that it does a first pass >> validation automatically. It's worthwhile, IMO. >> >> On this subject, what should our policy be on patches? Should we vote on >> every single one? How do other projects handle it? >> >> -JZ >
