On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Can you go into more detail how this would work? > > > > Currently, the requirements for a patch to be committed are: > 1) Patch posted to JIRA > 2) Patch reviewed, gets +1 from a committer > 3) All tests pass (automated by our pre-commit checks) > > Under the new proposal, an additional requirement would be added (the > "cool-off period"): > > 1) Patch posted to JIRA > 2) Patch reviewed, gets +1 from a committer > 3) All tests pass (automated by our pre-commit checks) > 4) Wait 24? hours from step 1). > 24 hours from patch posted does not seem to affect development and commit pace as much as 24 hours after a +1. It would only really affects patches which get reviewed and committed in 24 hours which seems like a small pool to me. Question: Does the patch posted have to be the final patch though? > > The goal of this are to allow more time for others in the community (who > are potentially in different timezones) to provide feedback on the change > before it gets merged. We could have an exception for the cool-off period > if the change is to fix a broken build. > > The downside is that we are not able to execute as quickly since we must > wait for the cool-off period before committing and must remember to go back > to commit patches once the cool-off period has completed. > > > > > > 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/ > > > -- Sravya Tirukkovalur
