Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge


+
Jakob Homan 2011-07-12, 00:11
+
Todd Lipcon 2011-07-12, 00:17
+
Jakob Homan 2011-07-12, 00:27
+
Eli Collins 2011-07-12, 00:41
+
Jakob Homan 2011-07-12, 00:44
+
Aaron T. Myers 2011-07-12, 00:56
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2011-07-12, 04:22
+
Doug Cutting 2011-07-12, 16:47
+
Stack 2011-07-12, 17:01
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge
Tsz Wo Sze 2011-07-13, 07:26
+1.

Tsz-Wo

________________________________
From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge

+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
>>
>
+
Nigel Daley 2011-07-13, 21:09
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-07-12, 04:26
+
Mahadev Konar 2011-07-12, 04:30
+
Todd Lipcon 2011-07-12, 04:38
+
Suresh Srinivas 2011-07-12, 04:44
+
Tom White 2011-07-13, 21:36
+
Owen OMalley 2011-07-15, 16:18
+
Jakob Homan 2011-07-22, 20:26