Hi Jianhua,

Thanks for your suggestion.
In another thread, Billy is proposing to use apache gitbox to host Kylin
repository. After that, we may switch to GitHub PR for review and merge. If
so, I think the review board is no longer recommended.


2018-02-02 17:20 GMT+08:00 ShaoFeng Shi <shaofeng...@apache.org>:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

Shaofeng Shi 史少锋

Reply via email to