Thanks everyone for setting this project up! Please pardon my ignorance of the details of common Apache processes, I guess this proposal is modeled after existing Apache projects.
The process states: > All pull requests for code changes (e.g. changes that modify the code > execution) > > - must be associated with an issue. > - must be reviewed and approved by at least two committers who are not the > developer(s). > - must be voted on in the development list using the code modifications > process documented in the Apache voting process document The latter two points seem somewhat redundant. What's the rationale behind having this double process of gathering reviewing approvals first and then another vote on the mailing list? How does that usually work in practice? I understand (and agree) that the dev mailing list should be the definitive place to gather information and decide on development, so it's nice that you can just follow it and will never miss something. On the other hand, there's a continuum between trivial documentation changes and a significant functional code change. E.g. there are non-trivial code changes that are still small and might suffer from the extra overhead of the full process of review + vote. I'd propose to make review approvals on Github PRs binding in general but allow reviewers to promote a change to a discussion (+ vote) on the mailing list if deemed necessary (i.e. make the third point optional as long as no one objects to it). Are there existing Apache Projects that we could take as an example? (E.g. Kafka? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes) Thanks, Johannes --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
