We are following rtc and specifically the form of rtc we adopted long ago for commits to Nifi. It simply requires a +1 before a merge and no apparent lack of consensus. Even then should there be disagreement after the fact there are procedures to resolve. Consensus forming is central to the apache way. Consensus forming in most cases and in healthy communities can be achieved on most matters without formal votes.
What is generally not a good practice is open jira, add PR, get +1, merge all in such a tight time window that folks could not reasonably discuss or review. So you'll notice that at least a 24 hour window should pass on prs. There are some truly trivial cases where this isn't really necessary and fortunately no matter what we can always resolve issues even after a commit. I definitely am a fan of the model we have centered in on. Thanks Joe On Mar 2, 2017 7:00 PM, "Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > There's no doubt the Sign-off-by is redundant (as GIT itself holds that > information, reason why GH is still able to show the information without > the sign-of-by stamp), however, I agree with your view around positive > action and easy to refer as Bryan pointed. > > Joe, > > Thanks for the clarification. If no-one opposes, I will update the > Contributor Guide regarding requirement vs. recommended as it seems to have > caused a small to confusion to some of the committers. If the message is > that consistency in this space is not required, than lets reflect this in > the documentation. > > On a side note, it may be worth to note that a "+1 before merge" model > would sit in between CTR and RTC - which technically seems to require > Consensus Approval (i.e. TTBOMK means 3 positive votes + lack of negative > votes in ASF lingo). > > Formality of number aside, there's no doubt our model is working like a > charm! :-) > > Cheers > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I recommend the practice. Although the signoff may not be authoritative, > > it requires a positive action that suggests you purposefully merged the > > commit, as opposed to commits you might have accidentally merged and > > pushed. > > > > Thanks, > > > > James > > > > >
