We always needed another committer's +1 even if it isn't that clear in the bylaws. In the minimum, we should codify this in the bylaws to avoid stuff like people committing their own patches.
Regarding trivial changes, I always distinguish between trivial *patches* and trivial changes to *existing* patches. Patches even if trivial need to be +1ed by another committer. OTOH, many a times, for patches that are extensively reviewed, potentially for months on, I sometimes end up making a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to codify this distinction though. Thanks +Vinod On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > There were discussions on several jiras and threads recently about how RTC > actually works in Hadoop. > My opinion has always been that for a patch to be committed it needs an > approval (+1) of at least one committer other than the author and no -1s. > The Bylaws seem to be stating just that: > "Consensus approval of active committers, but with a minimum of one +1." > See the full version under Actions / Code Change > <http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html#Decision+Making> > > Turned out people have different readings of that part of Bylaws, and > different opinions on how RTC should work in different cases. Some of the > questions that were raised include: > - Should we clarify the Code Change decision making clause in Bylaws? > - Should there be a relaxed criteria for "trivial" changes? > - Can a patch be committed if approved only by a non committer? > - Can a patch be committed based on self-review by a committer? > - What is the point for a non-committer to review the patch? > Creating this thread to discuss these (and other that I sure missed) issues > and to combine multiple discussions into one. > > My personal opinion we should just stick to the tradition. Good or bad, it > worked for this community so far. > I think most of the discrepancies arise from the fact that reviewers are > hard to find. May be this should be the focus of improvements rather than > the RTC rules. > > Thanks, > --Konst
