Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Blake Eggleston
+1 from me as well. Let's try it out On 7/10/18, 11:23 AM, "Sam Tunnicliffe" wrote: +1 here too On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 18:52, Marcus Eriksson wrote: > +1 here as well > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:06 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > > +1 from me

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Jeremy Hanna
If this motivates individuals and organizations to contribute time and resources to testing more before the release then +1. The varied testing before the release will make a huge difference. > On Jul 10, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > Ultimately, we have a consensus driven

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Sam Tunnicliffe
+1 here too On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 18:52, Marcus Eriksson wrote: > +1 here as well > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:06 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > > +1 from me too. > > > > — > > AY > > > > On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > > > > We have done all

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Dinesh Joshi
> On Jul 10, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > I guess I look at the initial voting in of committers as the process > by which people are trusted to merge things in. This proposed process > revokes that trust. If Jonathan Ellis or Dave Brosius (arbitrarily > picked) wants to merge

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Jonathan Haddad
You're right - if we do decide we're wrong we can always create the branch later. I retract my -1. On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:50 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > It’s not like this is an irrevocable change. > > If we encounter a scenario that seems to question its validity, or its > general

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Marcus Eriksson
+1 here as well On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:06 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > +1 from me too. > > — > AY > > On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > We have done all this for previous releases and we know it has not > worked > > well. So how giving it one

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
It’s not like this is an irrevocable change. If we encounter a scenario that seems to question its validity, or its general applicability, it can be raised on the mailing list and we can revisit the decision, surely? I can think of at least one way to weaken the rules in such a scenario,

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Jonathan Haddad
I guess I look at the idea of changing the branching strategy as a means of blocking work as a very odd way of solving a human problem. Having a majority of votes temporarily block potentially good work might be a good thing, and it might not matter at all. It might also frustrate some folks who

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
That’s a peculiar way of looking at it. Committer status is not an absolute right to autonomy over the codebase. It’s an embodiment of trust that you will follow the community's prevailing rules around commit, and that you’re competent to do so. If the community wants to change those rules

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Jeff Jirsa
Ultimately, we have a consensus driven development. If Jonathan or Dave strongly disagrees with this, they can share their strong disagreement. Jonathan shared his concern about dissuading contributors. What's absurd is trying the same thing we've tried for 10 years and expecting things to

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Jonathan Haddad
I guess I look at the initial voting in of committers as the process by which people are trusted to merge things in. This proposed process revokes that trust. If Jonathan Ellis or Dave Brosius (arbitrarily picked) wants to merge a new feature into trunk during the freeze, now they're not allowed?

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Ben Bromhead
Well put Mick +1 On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:06 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > +1 from me too. > > — > AY > > On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > We have done all this for previous releases and we know it has not > worked > > well. So how giving it one

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-10 Thread Aleksey Yeshchenko
+1 from me too. — AY On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > We have done all this for previous releases and we know it has not worked > well. So how giving it one more try is going to help here. Can someone > outline what will change for 4.0 which will make