Sounds like a good approach. I'm all in favor of following a process that works for other ASF projects.
Speaking of votes by committer, I think any vote would be recorded as binding or non-binding based on committer status. I am not a committer so I always make sure to mark mine as non-binding. Michael On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Nate Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, > > As a point of consideration it's good to highlight that in such a scenario > where a +1 is given and 48 hours to review prior to merge, any -1 should > reset the vote in my mind. Votes of such nature would have to be restricted > to committers on the project. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Nate Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > From my own experience and also in talking directly with a few committers > > to the project the requirement for three +1's from committers should be > > reviewed. > > > > My understanding is that other projects in the ASF simply require one > vote > > and provide some time for review by others prior to merging (such as a > > 24-48 hour period). However more emphasis is placed on refining code in > > preparation for releases. > > > > As it stands today we require at least three +1's before merge, and there > > is no time requirement. > > > > Since we are a growing community, and the goal is to develop more code > > contributors I think it is important to bring this up for review in hopes > > that we can adopt something that allows faster iterations with a strong > > focus on polishing for future releases. > > > > - Nathanael > > > -- Michael Ridley <[email protected]> office: (650) 352-1337 mobile: (571) 438-2420 Senior Solutions Architect Cloudera
