Hi! with all the major bits of infrastructure migrated and almost all of the initial committers now having access to ASF accounts I'd like to open up a discussion for getting us into a state when we understand what's the current process for accepting new code into the project. Selfishly, I need just as much consensus on the process as is required for me to push my stuff in ;-)
What follows is the list of questions I have compiled as somebody who, for the past week, had various itches to scratch around Geode and didn't know how to proceed. I'm also providing a few opinions, but only as a starting point for a broader discussion. 1. Our website. Currently http://geode.incubator.apache.org doesn't have any content. Two questions that we need to answer are: 1.1. What tool will we use to create html 1.2. How the source code for the website is going to be managed. Personally, I'd be pushing really hard to manage a website as part of the repository so I can just run: gradle site and not worry about much else 2. A typical ASF way for signaling that you would like to contribute something is to open up a JIRA and follow up with the patch. What about our Github integration? I'd suggest the following: anytime a PR comes, a committers who is interested in helping to get the patch in opens up a corresponding JIRA. That way we can have a central source of truth on ASF JIRA while still enabling the workflow. 3. If we agree that JIRA is our central information radiator for tracking all the contributions to the project AND that patches should be attached to a JIRA, then the only question I have left is about reviews. I propose that this is the request that whoever is providing a review can make of original submitter. If the patch is tiny -- it can be reviews as-is. If it is large the original submitter could be asked to upload it to https://reviews.apache.org or any other tool. 4. Finally, the question of committing the change. I'll chime in on a separate thread that you guys have already created, but for now (given that there's a final code drop coming soon) I'd like to propose that Dan, William and Anthony should be required to give any patch an explicit +1 before it gets committed. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT a suggestion for having gatekeepers. This is just a suggestion of what we do between now and when the final code drop comes. Meantime we'll have a separate discussion on how roadmap for the project gets maintained and how anything that doesn't require studying code base for a few month could be committed to the project. Thanks, Roman.
