No I think its fine, I never see or read that email :P Regards. 2017-10-18 13:36 GMT-05:00 Nate Smith <[email protected]>:
> I'm sorry it looks like my last email didn't go to @dev. > > Do need to have a more structured vote on this? > I did not see any negative opinions, only a few points on the allotted time > and revisiting at a more "mature" point in the future. > > Let me know, > > - Nathanael > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Nate Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Bump, > > > > Do we need to take an official vote on this? > > > > +1 from me of course on the change, and it seems that we're all in > > agreement. > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Cesar Berho <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +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 > >>> > >> > >> > > >
