-0.1. I'm not at fan (at all) of a 6 day timeout but I understand the rationale. After thinking about this a bit, I also don't like the complexity of tracing authorship of changes (when the author is a committer) which this completely breaks. We absolutely need to ensure proper records are kept as to the original author of the patch.
All of that said, Flume is a distributed system that people trust with their data and I think we need an insanely high bar for contribution. Of course, there's at least one major project at the ASF that I think has really poor implementation quality and they operate in RTC so I wonder about the efficacy. I'm torn and remain slightly against making the process even heavier (after some thought). I'm convincible (not that it's required that I be convinced if everyone feels otherwise). I trust the process. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > +0 > > I'm not really a fan of RTC so this amendment doesn't impact much from my > point of view. > > Ralph > > > On 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 > -- Eric Sammer twitter: esammer data: www.cloudera.com
