I guess if it was up to me to actually write a formal doc describing the process it would go something like:
——————— ActiveMQ uses a Commit-Then-Review process for getting changes contributed to the development branches. In general, this means the ActiveMQ committers are free to directly commit their own work to master and push those changes to the canonical repository at Apache. However, the expectation is that the developer has made a good effort to test their changes and is reasonably confident that the changes that are being committed will not “break the build.” What does it mean to be reasonably confident? That may depend on the developer. If the developer has run the same maven commands that the CI builds are running, they can likely be reasonably confident. However, if the changes are significant, touches a wide area of code, or even if the developer just wants a second opinion, they are encouraged to engage other members of the community to obtain an additional review prior to commit. This can easily be done via a pull request on github, a patch file attached to an email or JIRA, committed to a branch in the Apache git repo, etc… There are a variety of options open to them. Having additional eyes looking at significant changes prior to committing to the main development branches is definitely encouraged if it helps obtain the “reasonable confidence” that the build is not broken and code quality has not decreased. We also have automatic builds setup to test github pull requests in advance to help establish a good level of confidence in the build. However, “things happen”. We’re all human. In the case where the build does break, the expectation is that the developer will make a best effort to get the builds fixed in a reasonable amount of time. If it cannot be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, the commit can be reverted and re-reviewed. ——————— Everyone: does that about cover it? Did I miss anything? The github pull requests and gui tools are definitely a good tool chain in certain cases and I would still encourage those folks that find value in them to continue using them. However, they cannot be “required”. Dan > On Jun 9, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 to stay with the existing CTR practice that is well established in the >> ActiveMQ community. That's why committership is granted. It's a level of >> trust and confidence that you don't make low hanging fruit errors. > > I actually screw up all the time ;) But I rather make eventual > mistakes than not do something :) > > Anyways... lets keep the pull requests as a tool. For instance I just > prevented an issue because of a PR Build > > https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/ > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22 > > But I don't want to talk about the issue itself on this Thread... This > is a meta discussion.. I will talk about the issue itself on another > post I'm about to make -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
