Based on these comments I would also like to +1 RTC. As Sean pointed out, it seems like the best approach to promote our two most important objectives - regular quality software releases and growing a healthy community.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > - What constitutes a valid review? > > This page > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit > > suggests that a review is a consensus approval. I am very concerned by > > that definition if we're talking every commit means we need a vote. For > > the vast majority of commits this just seems to onerous and too time > > consuming and frankly to me takes some of the fun out of developing. If > > for us a review is simply that a 'committer' has reviewed the code then I > > am perfectly happy with this and I am thinking this is in-line with the > > model Benson described for his dayjob "'make branch, submit pr, get > review, > > merge'" > > > > > One point of clarification here. On the RtC ASF projects I've been on, the > review votes are called "consensus" because a -1 is a binding veto, not > because a formal VOTE is needed. The number of binding +1s has varied as > well. Rather than the ASF defined three +1s, generally only one is needed. > So long as we agree as a community on the number, it probably is not of > much consequence long term. > > -- > Sean >
