Hi Shaofeng, I like this idea very much. Do we need official vote?
2018-02-02 11:39 GMT+08:00 Liukaige <[email protected]>: > ＋1 > This policy will definitely improve the quality of codes. Pretty cool! > > 2018-02-02 11:10 GMT+08:00 ShaoFeng Shi <[email protected]>: > >> Hello, Apache Kylin community, >> >> This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal; >> >> The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement. >> >> Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See >> the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current >> owners are by component. >> >> Patches that fit within the scope of a single 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 but committers will suffice. >> >> Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be >> committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the >> x-component patch. >> >> Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until >> the justification for the -1 is addressed. >> >> Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will >> update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future. >> Thanks! >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋 >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > Kaige Liu(刘凯歌) > > *"Do small things with great love." *
