Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"
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.

--Bobby

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]>
>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
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB