Honestly I'm pretty fine with the policy described at http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions
"Patches that fit within the scope of a single Apache HBase component require, at least, a +1 by one of the component's owners before commit. If owners are absent -- busy or otherwise -- two +1s by non-owners will suffice. " that mean usually one +1 is enough, or sometime 2x +1. But I will not complain if I need just one +1 for this patch ;) I think having 2x +1 will increase the quality of the code/design. 2013/12/18 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > Also let me clarify something: A while back we discussed the Hadoop policy > of requiring 3 +1s for a branch merge. That sounds reasonable to me. I > don't see this in the current online manual text. > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and > > unable to hear clearly. I'm not in favor of that policy as stated. > > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Owners are not around > > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the > > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer > > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. I am not in favor of requiring > more > > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 > and > > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of > > CTR for trivial changes. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s: > >> > >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions > >> > >> At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give > >> chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not > progress > >> beyond discussion. > >> > >> St.Ack > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > No > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA? > >> > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> a > >> écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I gave +1 already > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1 > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > >> > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > It's small and there for a while. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> > Best regards, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > - Andy > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > >> > Hein > >> > >> > (via Tom White) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > > >> > > - Andy > >> > > > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > >> Hein > >> > > (via Tom White) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > - Andy > >> > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > >> > (via Tom White) > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
