It's up to each community to decide what it's comfortable with, and
then make sure the process is applied equally to everyone. In my
experience, 'non-minor, trivial' is pretty nebulous. Does a
3,000-line IDE-driven refactor count as non-minor? What about a one
line change in the heart of the
Can we suggest a +1 vote for non-minor/non-trivial commits, or do all
commits require a +1? Or is the "non-minor, non-trivial" wording too
nebulous. t feels like this would work better the more committers we have
given our different daily work schedules.
-s
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jakob
Thanks for sharing this information.
All,
Please share any additional thoughts. In a few days, I will kick off a VOTE
thread to decide our process.
Mentors,
Just curious! Is there an automation we can use to ensure/enforce that PRs
and JIRAs receive the +1 binding (from committers) votes needed
Hey-
The consensus approval link is referring to votes (e.g. releases,
new committers, new PMCers, etc) rather than code changes. A single
+1 is standard for code changes, as Chris describes. However,
projects are welcome to provide more fine-grained requirements as
well. For example, Hadoop
Hey Sid,
> In the RTC case, we need 3 +1 binding (a.k.a. committer) votes
This sounds very high. Usually one +1 (other than the person sending the)
is normal in an RTC scenario.
> In the CTR case, we may want a separate develop branch against which to
run integration tests and merge to master
