Has apache thought about OWNERS controls? Ie: an OWNERS file in a dir that lists OWNERS who must sign-off and then perhaps if none recurse to parents and collect higher level uber-owners? This removes alot of ambiguity, ensure process, and well - its clear and transparent. Granted it requires some tooling.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < [email protected]> wrote: > Yep totally understood. Review's can be an FYI, for sure. > > My general rule of thumb: > > 1. if code is worked on in an area of the tree that *you* are the only > one familiar with, and the change isn't uber significant, go into CTR > (commit-then-review) mode, and commit it (that's what version control > is for :) ). > > 2. if code is in an area of code that multiple people are really looking > at, and that you want consensus (which is the point of community), then > I may throw up a Review Board requesting feedback from the other stewards > of those portions of the code, looking for their feedback, etc. In those > cases, give them 24-48-72 hours to review, and then get that feedback, > and consensus. This is "review then commit" (RTC) mode. > > 3. if it's a new feature, I may do either CTR or RTC depending on feelings > about the social nature of the area of the code/architecture. > > I generally think CTR is always the way to go, and do so, but will > fall back to RTC when I want to gain consensus. > > HTH. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Hindman <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] > > > Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:16 PM > To: mesos <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1471710 - > /incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh > > >Makes sense. Sometimes we throw people on reviews more as an FYI (i.e., > >"check this out"). It would be swell if Review Board could distinguish > >between the different intentions, but I agree that it's nice to let a > >reviewer have time to review. > > > > > >On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Ben, > >> > >> Just a general note. I had a total of a few hours to look at this > >> before you committed it. That really isn't enough time. Typically > >> projects give folks at least between 24-72 hours to let folks scope > >> something out (or declare otherwise upfront). Apologies I didn't > >> get to look at this until now (and I sent in a comment), I've been > >> underwater in meetings, etc. > >> > >> But it would be good in the future to allow others to have a chance > >> to take a look. I see you got 2 ship its (1 from vinod, and another > >> from benm), which is great, I was on the review too and would have > >> liked to scope it too before committing. > >> > >> No biggie, just wanted to raise this b/c it's a community issue, > >> especially for scaling out the project to diverse committers in > >> multiple organizations, etc., since they'll need time to review things. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > >> Senior Computer Scientist > >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > >> Email: [email protected] > >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > >><[email protected] > >> > > >> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:52 PM > >> To: "[email protected]" > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: svn commit: r1471710 - > >>/incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh > >> > >> >Author: benh > >> >Date: Wed Apr 24 21:52:42 2013 > >> >New Revision: 1471710 > >> > > >> >URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1471710 > >> >Log: > >> >Fixed bug creating SVN tag in release.sh. > >> > > >> >Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10767 > >> > > >> >Modified: > >> > incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh > >> > > >> >Modified: incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh > >> >URL: > >> > > >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh?rev > >>= > >> >1471710&r1=1471709&r2=1471710&view=diff > >> > >>>======================================================================== > >>>== > >> >==== > >> >--- incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh (original) > >> >+++ incubator/mesos/trunk/support/release.sh Wed Apr 24 21:52:42 2013 > >> >@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ echo "${GREEN}Finally, we'll create an S > >> > > >> > MESSAGE="Tag for release-${VERSION}-incubating-RC${CANDIDATE}." > >> > > >> >-git svn branch -n --tag -m ${MESSAGE} \ > >> >+git svn branch --tag -m ${MESSAGE} \ > >> > release-${VERSION}-incubating-RC${CANDIDATE} || \ > >> > { echo "${RED}Failed to create SVN tag/branch${NORMAL}"; exit 1; } > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > -- John Sirois 303-512-3301
