+1 On Thu, May 14, 2026, 3:02 AM Aman Mittal <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > On Thu, 14 May, 2026, 5:30 am James Dailey, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 3:03 PM Adam Monsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I was working on improving our branch protections >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2605> today and was >>> forced to change our workflow a bit. >>> >>> *Before*: commits directly to develop were allowed. If a PR is used, >>> all conversations in that PR must be resolved. >>> >>> *After*: commits directly to develop are not allowed. All changes must >>> come from approved PRs, and all conversations in PRs must be resolved. >>> >>> What do people think of this change? Not an official vote but: +1? -1? >>> Must all changes come from approved PRs? Note another side effect: *Someone >>> else* must review and approve your PR. For example, PR #5846 >>> <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5846>. >>> >>> Personally I'm +1 on .asf.yaml as it is now >>> <https://github.com/apache/fineract/blob/e3d698bc1f2d297ad124e10c2fbf2596f91bb00b/.asf.yaml>, >>> enforcing the "After" rule as stated above. >>> >>> I think it's a reasonable set of rules to enforce since AFAIK we already >>> follow this in practice, but there may be edge cases I'm not thinking of. >>> When I browsed git commit history the only exceptions I found were my own >>> commits directly to develop. >>> >>> If we decide we don't want the new rules, we'll need to remove these >>> lines from .asf.yaml: >>> >>> required_conversation_resolution: true >>> required_pull_request_reviews: >>> required_approving_review_count: 1 >>> >>> I wanted only the first line to keep things the way they are, but using >>> rulesets I can't have it without the other two lines. And we must now >>> use rulesets. So I thought through the new way (requiring at least one >>> approved PR), and I think that'll probably be a Good Thing. So I'm still +1. >>> >>> (Not to complicate things too much but I believe we can omit the >>> conversation resolution requirement and keep the approved reviews >>> requirement. So yet another option. I prefer to keep the conversation >>> resolution requirement.) >>> >>> Feedback welcome. If nobody has any strong feelings about this I'll just >>> use lazy consensus and leave it as-is. >>> >>> -- >>> Adam Monsen >>> Software Engineer » Mifos Initiative >>> Release Manager » Apache Fineract >>> Author » Steadfast Self-Hosting >>> PGP key » 0xA9A14F22F57DA182 >>> >>>
