I think cool off makes sense in general, but i think it would be an unnecessary overhead for smallish patches, bug fixes, test fixes. Might create a dependency which can significantly delay development pace. But I do understand defining the criteria might be tricky, thoughts?
Sravya > On Nov 10, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Sun, Dapeng <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 for 24 hours. > > I usually waited for 24 hours and committed. I think people in community > could join the jira discussion after jira created or patch available. 24 > hours is enough to give a buffer for people in different time zones. > > About the detail, how about "24 hours after first +1 if there's no > objection"? We can also updated > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/How+to+commit after > discussion. > > Regards > Dapeng > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cool off period for commits? > > Can you go into more detail how this would work? > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 02:25 PM, Lenni Kuff wrote: >> Currently Sentry has not policy in place for a cool off period for >> commits (time after patch has gotten +1'ed that the change can be >> committed). >> This >> limits the opportunity other people in the community can review a >> change prior to it going in. This is particularly important since we >> have committers across many different time zones >> >> What do you all think about adding a cool-off period for all commits >> after a patch has gotten a +1? The Hive project uses 24 hours, so we >> could go with that. Could also use something longer like 48 or 72 >> hours. Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Lenni > > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > [email protected] > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
