+1 Cheers, Nige
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 Sounds good to me. >> >> Something like the following? >> >> Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml >> ================================================================== >> <p>Lazy consensus of active committers, but with a minimum of >> - one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1.</p></li> >> + one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1, unless >> + the code change represents a merge from a branch, in which case >> + three +1s are required.</p></li> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd >>> like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum >>> of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk. >>> >>> The rationale: >>> Feature branches are often created in order that developers can >>> iterate quickly without the review then commit requirements of trunk. >>> Branches' commit requirements are determined by the branch maintainer >>> and in this situation are often set up as commit-then-review. As >>> such, there is no way to guarantee that the entire changeset offered >>> for trunk merge has had a second pair of eyes on it. Therefore, it is >>> prudent to give that final merge heightened scrutiny, particularly >>> since these branches often extensively affect critical parts of the >>> system. Requiring three binding +1s does not slow down the branch >>> development process, but does provide a better chance of catching bugs >>> before they make their way to trunk. >>> >>> Specifically, under the Actions subsection, this vote would add a new >>> bullet item: >>> * Branch merge: A feature branch that does not require the same >>> criteria for code to be committed to trunk will require three binding >>> +1s before being merged into trunk. >>> >>> The last bylaw change required lazy majority of PMC and ran for 7 >>> days, which I believe would apply to this one as well. That would >>> have this vote ending 5pm PST July 18. >>> -Jakob >>> >>
