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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"


+
Chris Douglas 2013-07-15, 23:10
+
Luke Lu 2013-07-16, 18:31
+
Tsuyoshi OZAWA 2013-07-17, 03:52
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"
Chris Nauroth 2013-07-17, 17:31
+1

This sounds like an effective way to get more people involved and get
people involved more deeply.  As a practical matter, I think at least one
full committer or PMC member should stay active in the feature branch to
provide guidance.  I expect this will help ease some of the challenges with
big merges when it comes time for the feature branch to merge back to trunk.

Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I agree with your proposal. If code tracking gets easier, it can
> reduce the reviewer's time and effort.
> +1(non-binding).
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Luke Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds good to me. This would encourage non-trivial code contribution and
> > maintenance.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Are we going to enforce branch ACLs (mostly to prevent mistakes)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> - Tsuyoshi
>
+
Eli Collins 2013-07-17, 17:43
+
Robert Evans 2013-07-18, 16:31
+
Kihwal Lee 2013-07-22, 18:47
+
Chris Douglas 2013-07-23, 05:28