+1 Thanks Julian!
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:11 PM Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.09.2019 16:53, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Bert Huijben wrote:
> > +1 on reducing the number of required votes to just 2 +1s.
> >
> > We have consensus in this thread for reducing the requirement for
> > regular
On 17.09.2019 16:53, Julian Foad wrote:
> Bert Huijben wrote:
> +1 on reducing the number of required votes to just 2 +1s.
>
> We have consensus in this thread for reducing the requirement for
> regular (non-LTS) releases to two "+1" votes, but not to just one.
Thanks for pushing this
Bert Huijben wrote:
+1 on reducing the number of required votes to just 2 +1s.
We have consensus in this thread for reducing the requirement for
regular (non-LTS) releases to two "+1" votes, but not to just one.
Published in http://svn.apache.org/r1867064
- Julian
Fri Sep 06 07:14:56 GMT+01:00 2019 Branko Čibej :
> On 06.09.2019 07:49, Julian Foad wrote:
> >
> > Bert Huijben wrote:
> >> Why just one +1?
> >> I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator
> >> and one additional eye.
> >> For bindings we have +- the same
On 06.09.2019 07:49, Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Bert Huijben wrote:
>> Why just one +1?
>> I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator
>> and one additional eye.
>> For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone
>> else than a full committer.
Bert Huijben wrote:
> Why just one +1?
> I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator
> and one additional eye.
> For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone
> else than a full committer. (Not sure if we still have any active partial
Why just one +1?
I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator
and one additional eye.
For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone
else than a full committer. (Not sure if we still have any active partial
committers though)
As always,
Julian Foad wrote:
> The proposed change now looks like this:
>
> old:
>
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-stabilization-how-many-votes
>
> new:
>
>
The proposed change now looks like this:
old:
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-stabilization-how-many-votes
new:
http://subversion-staging.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-stabilization-how-many-votes
[[[
-A change is approved
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:54 +00:00:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
I think that section as it stands (before your change) is pretty hard to
follow: it jumps back and forth between different topics. I might take
a shot at clarifying it (without semantic changes), if
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:54 +00:00:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I think that section as it stands (before your change) is pretty hard to
> > follow: it jumps back and forth between different topics. I might take
> > a shot at clarifying it (without semantic changes), if that won't
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:54 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation at any
> opportunity. Nearly all of it is much too long. It would be much better
> to state the facts in a few bullet points, and move the discussion of
> rationale and history
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:36 +00:00:
To all devs:
Proposal for a permanent change to our backport rules [1]:
* For non-LTS releases, each backport nomination only requires one +1
vote (instead of three).
Specific diff to the text of [1]:
- A change
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:36 +00:00:
> To all devs:
>
> Proposal for a permanent change to our backport rules [1]:
>
>* For non-LTS releases, each backport nomination only requires one +1
> vote (instead of three).
>
> Specific diff to the text of [1]:
>
> - A change needs
Nathan Hartman wrote:
+ A change needs three +1 votes (for an LTS release line) or one +1
vote
(for a non-LTS release line) from full committers (or partial
committers
for the involved areas), and no vetoes, to go into A.B.x.
snip
- (If a change affects the build
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:36 AM Julian Foad wrote:
>
> + A change needs three +1 votes (for an LTS release line) or one +1 vote
> (for a non-LTS release line) from full committers (or partial committers
> for the involved areas), and no vetoes, to go into A.B.x.
snip
- (If a change affects
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:36 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> To all devs:
>
> Proposal for a permanent change to our backport rules [1]:
>
>* For non-LTS releases, each backport nomination only requires one +1
> vote (instead of three).
>
> Specific diff to the text of [1]:
>
> - A change needs
To all devs:
Proposal for a permanent change to our backport rules [1]:
* For non-LTS releases, each backport nomination only requires one +1
vote (instead of three).
Specific diff to the text of [1]:
- A change needs three +1 votes from full committers (or partial
committers for the
On 18.07.2019 14:09, Julian Foad wrote:
> Recently there have not been enough developers willing and able to
> test and approve proposed fixes for back-port to the supported release
> branches.
>
> We have just been discussing this on #svn-dev [1]. Rather than delay
> forever, myself, stsp and
Recently there have not been enough developers willing and able to test
and approve proposed fixes for back-port to the supported release branches.
We have just been discussing this on #svn-dev [1]. Rather than delay
forever, myself, stsp and brane decided that in line with "silence
implies
20 matches
Mail list logo
