Chris Douglas 2013-07-15, 23:10
Luke Lu 2013-07-16, 18:31
Tsuyoshi OZAWA 2013-07-17, 03:52
Chris Nauroth 2013-07-17, 17:31
+1 sounds reasonable to me. There's an assumption that we won't
release from feature branches, worth saying that explicitly.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In some projects at the ASF, a PMC member can grant commit rights on a
> feature branch to a contributor with minimal overhead. When developing
> significant or pervasive features, collaboration across linked JIRAs
> can be difficult for the contributors to maintain and for reviewers to
> track. Since we already support this model of branched development for
> Hadoop committers, extending it to newer members of the community
> seems pretty natural.
> Given that many of the major feature branches in 2.1 included at least
> one significant contributor without a write bit, this pattern is also
> common enough to adjust our bylaws.
> In one possible protocol, a PMC member can propose a set of
> contributors for a particular feature branch. If there is no NACK,
> then those people are given a commit bit on the branch. Other
> responsibilities for committers- such as reviewing patches, vetoing
> changes in trunk, etc.- do not apply. The protocol on the branch
> should not require explicit rules, but contributors should keep in
> mind that our bylaws also require 3 +1s to merge the branch back;
> creating a feature branch is not a promise to merge. One would also
> expect proposed branch committers to have already written some code as
> the base of the new branch.
> Thoughts? Modifications to the protocol? -C
Robert Evans 2013-07-18, 16:31
Kihwal Lee 2013-07-22, 18:47
Chris Douglas 2013-07-23, 05:28