[X] +1 Accept the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy thanks Prasad
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is my vote: > > [X] +1 Accept the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy > > Thanks, > Arvind Prabhakar > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > This is a call for VOTE to amend the existing RTC policy for Flume. For > > details of the stated policy and proposed amendment, see [1] and [2]. The > > discussion thread where this proposal was discussed is available at [3]. > > > > Please cast your votes: > > > > [ ] +1 Accept the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy > > [ ] +0 Indifferent to the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy > > [ ] -1 Reject the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy. > > > > This vote will run for 72 hours. > > > > [1] Stated RTC policy: > > > > Code commits for all patches require: > > > > Lazy consensus of active committers but with a minimum +1 vote or 3 days > > > > passing with no comment. The code can be committed after the first +1 or > > > > after 3 days pass with no comment. > > > > If the code changes that represent a merge from a branch requires three > > +1s. > > > > > > Reference: http://markmail.org/thread/wfjpauoffz67k6ut > > > > > > [2] Proposed amendment: > > > > > > - All patches must require at lease one +1 vote from a committer. > > - A patch authored by a committer should be committed to the source > > control by another committer who +1s the patch during review. > > - First provision for no review commit: > > - If a patch authored by a committer is not reviewed within three > > days of submission, the patch author must request prioritization > of the > > review on the developer mailing list by other committers. > > - If another three days pass after a reminder and no one reviews > > the code, the committer may push the patch in. > > - If during any of this period a review is started by another > > committer, then no time-out applies and both the author must > address any > > suggestions and concerns as necessary to get a +1 by the reviewing > > committer. > > - Second provision for new review commit: > > - When cutting a release, the Release Manager will have the > > authority to make commits to facilitate the release. Such commits > should > > only be to address build and other infrastructure requirements as > needed > > for the release. > > - Modifying a test or functionality necessary to cut a release > > would still require the regular review cycle and a minimum of one > +1 from > > another committer. > > > > > > [3] Discussion thread for proposal: > > http://markmail.org/thread/ri5nigh42ugfg3zd > > > > Thanks, > > Arvind Prabhakar > > > > >
