I definitely agree with the intent of making it as low friction as possible. I hope this isn't counter to that goal, but I would propose something like a 48 hour window here only because the project is still fairly young and there isn't a lot of established institutional wisdom or best practices so it might be necessary to figure out how to best integrate contributions. My understanding is that many of the committers and PMC members are only nominally experienced with ASF so I think there will be a learning period. I would expect in a year or two that instant commit is probably going to be the right thing for Spot.
My (non-binding) two cents :-) Michael On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:44 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I would recommend to make contributing to Spot as easily as possible > because any hurdle or obstacle will make contributing harder and thus will > discourage potential long term contributors. > > Pretty much all other projects that I’m involved with at ASF are following > something in the lines of what Nate is describing. Anyone on the internet > can submit a patch and all it takes is a single committer who does review > and then the patch is merged to master branch. Some projects do a “cool > off" window before the “review” and “merge” to make sure that other > committers have time to jump in - projects like Hadoop and Hive tend to > give 24 hours, projects like Sqoop or Flume simply commit immediately. Any > other committer however have always a chance to jump in and pretty much > VETO the patch — provided there is a good explanation for the push back. > > Jarcec > > > On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Michael Ridley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > -- Michael Ridley <[email protected]> office: (650) 352-1337 mobile: (571) 438-2420 Senior Solutions Architect Cloudera
