+1 on the 48 hrs period. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Gonzalez, Victor < [email protected]> wrote:
> +1 with 48 hours period > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 21, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jon Zeolla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree, at least one +1 from a committer as a minimum bar is pretty > > reasonable. For bigger changes usually having more people review and > test > > makes sense, but I've seen that handled as more of a one off. > > > > I'm usually in favor of a 24 hour wait as well, but could see it go > either > > way here. > > > > Jon > > > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 16:44 <[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 > >> > >> -- > > > > Jon >
