72 hours have passed, we will start using this policy for our future
releases.

Thanks

Le mar. 7 mars 2023 à 21:29, Ferruzzi, Dennis <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid>
a écrit :

> +1 (non-bindingly lazy)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pierre Jeambrun <pierrejb...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:11 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [LAZY CONSENSUS] Allow shorter voting periods for
> subsequent RCs
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> *Context:*Having a 72h vote window on each subsequent RCs can slow down the
> release process, bring some annoyance and add load on the release manager.
> This could be avoided, especially when the new RC only ships a few extra
> commits. This proposal would bring some flexibility to the voting process
> against subsequent RCs. (rcX with X > 1)
>
> *Proposal:*
> For Airflow Core, Providers and API Clients, at the discretion of the RM,
> subsequent RCs vote windows can be shortened down to a hard minimum of 24
> hours. Also the sum of all voting windows for a specific release cannot be
> shorter than 72h.
>
> *Examples:*
> - An issue was found on rc1 after 24h then rc2 voting window can be
> shortened down to 48h.
> - An issue was found on rc1 after 70h then rc2 voting window can be
> shortened down to 24h. (hard minimum)
> - An issue was found on rc1 after 12h then rc2 voting window can be
> shortened down to 60h.
> - An issue was found on rc1 after 12h and an issue was found on rc2 after
> 24h then rc3 voting window can be shortened down to 36h. If an issue is
> then found on rc3 after 24h, rc4 can be shortened down to 24h. (hard
> minimum again)
>
> *Discussion thread:*
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8rpq06pobp6rnm9phnbc9fz4ky32sm16
>
> After 72 hours, unless there is an objection, this proposal will be adopted
> and we can start applying it to our releases.
>
> Thanks,
> Pierre
>

Reply via email to