In that case Alex, could we just have a minimum of 2 people +1 it before you 
can commit it?

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Kalyan Kumar Kalvagadda <kkal...@cloudera.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Issue that you are talking about can be addressed by putting some
> additional guide lines in place.
> That way, as a process person who submits the patch should perform the same
> 'sanity check' before committing.
> Having another person responsible for sanity and commit complicates things.
> 
> -Kalyan
> 
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> For assigning committers I think this may be a simple informal request -
>> for example to one of the reviewers or to someone else to volunteer. It may
>> delay commits a bit indeed, but I don't think it will be a problem.
>> 
>> The problem I am trying to address is the quality of the review process.
>> Suppose we have some change C for which Alice have some comments and Bob
>> have some and eventually Alice says Ship it and it isn't clear whether Bob
>> is Ok with the change or not, but since ALice is the committer, the author
>> of the patch thinks that it is ok to submit it right away. That's where a
>> 'sanity check' person would be useful.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> How is this committer going to be assigned?
>>> This might lead to some complications if the committer assigned leave for
>>> vacations afterward and the community is not notified. It will end up
>>> delaying the commits and the author (being a committer) won't be able to
>>> commit the patch due to this process. What are we trying to solve with
>>> this?
>>> 
>>> Btw, I've seen in other projects that some committers usually wait 1 or 2
>>> days to commit a patch after a +1 has been done on it. This is to allow
>>> other reviewers to disagree with the +1 and give more feedback before
>>> committing the patch. Would this help?
>>> 
>>> - Sergio
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sounds reasonable to me as long as they can get someone to do the
>> commit
>>>> in a reasonable timeframe.  I wouldn’t want to have to wait days for it
>>> to
>>>> get in after it has been properly reviewed.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to propose an adjustment to the commit process in Sentry
>>>>> project. The idea is to require that commit should not be done by the
>>>>> person providing the change but by some other committer. This
>>> committer's
>>>>> responsibility is to ensure that all code review concerns were
>>> addressed
>>>> in
>>>>> one way or another and to do a final sanity check. This committer can
>>> be
>>>>> one of the reviewers or someone who didn't review the code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Alex
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to