I like the idea too. My only concern would be the load it would put on
INFRA to support this, but I don't see hundreds of new committers showing
up so I am +1 on it.
On 7/17/13 12:43 PM, "Eli Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>+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]>
>> 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