On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/05/2015 15:13, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Agree that RTC is really important. In addition, we should consider > that some changes require specific knowledge and context (I’m thinking of > you AbstractRegionMap). Note that I’m not advocating for code ownership. > Spark [1] uses this approach: > > > > "For certain modules, changes to the architecture and public API should > also be reviewed by a maintainer for that module (which may or may not be > the same as the main reviewer) before being merged. The PMC has designated > the following maintainers…” > > > > Changes to public API’s or core internals would fall into this > category. Thoughts? > > Good points on context; there's a lot of code to understand. > > Is knowledge about specific components concentrated in specific people > (or groups of people) in the existing developer team? > > Things will get more clear when have the components under Jira. We should then have the leaders (experts) for such components and they will have to review such critical changes.
> > > > > Anthony > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers > > > > > > > >> On May 7, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> One question that we need to discuss is whether every merge is RTC > >> (Review-than-Commit) or CTR (Commit-than-Review). > >> > >> My take is that we should start with RTC and, if the review process > gets in > >> the way of innovation, then we go to CTR. But, until everyone learns > the > >> rules of the road, I think RTC is justified. Under RTC rules, all > commits > >> should be reviewed (+1) by three committers before being merged. (If > you > >> are a committer, then two others are needed.). Any committer can veto > (-1) > >> a patch - which should cause a discussion about resolving the veto. > >> > >> So, #1 - your suggestion sounds right with the need for three > committers to > >> approve before merge to develop. > >> > >> For #2, I think it should be a separate branch and require 3 signoffs > for > >> now. > >> > >> As the project matures, "obvious" commits can be CTR. > >> > >> My $.02. -- justin > >> On May 7, 2015 5:44 AM, "Pid" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> Like it says, can we discuss how the review process will work? > >>> For these examples: > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. I would like to work on upgrading the Spring dependencies in gfsh. > >>> > >>> Proposed approach: file a JIRA, cut a feature branch, push it & then > what? > >>> > >>> > >>> 2. I would like to add an entry to .gitignore (.idea/) > >>> > >>> Does this require a JIRA, a feature branch and a review? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> p > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> [key:62590808] > >>> > > > > > -- > > [key:62590808] > -- William Markito Oliveira Enterprise Architect *http://www.pivotal.io/ <http://www.pivotal.io/>* For prompt responses to questions on GemFire/GemFireXD, please write to *rtds-dev-ea at pivotal.io <http://pivotal.io>*
