Billy, this is an open discussion; A vote usually happens after the
discussion. I'm not sure whether it is needed if all members are okay with
it.

2018-02-02 14:56 GMT+08:00 Jianhua Peng <pengjian...@apache.org>:

> +1
>
> On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <shaofeng...@apache.org> wrote:
> > 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,

Shaofeng Shi 史少锋

Reply via email to