On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eh, that must have been discussed when I wasn't there or on the phone and > unable to hear clearly. Looks like it. There was some small back and forth on this topic mentioned in the minutes [1] and posted as part of the meeting agenda. > I'm not in favor of that policy as stated. > You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? I wrote up what I thought our understanding. This 'policy' goes back a ways. It came up out of this discussion [2]. More friction around commits also seems like an old theme as an attempt at getting more eyes on patches before commit and as a means of combatting crap commits. > Ownership isn't working out as far as I can see. Apart from a few obvious ones -- Jimmy on AM, Elliott on metrics, you on REST, Nick on types -- the list has gone stale. > Owners are not around > enough. In fact I would say many people are relatively absent from the > community for long stretches of time. That's fine, this is a volunteer > society. We can't gate on an owner +1. The policy has a mechanism for skirting absent owners; i.e. two +1s by random committers == an owner's +1. > I am not in favor of requiring more > than one +1 except for the obvious case where a committer should not +1 and > commit their own work. I am in favor of continuing our informal policy of > CTR for trivial changes. > > > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for substantive patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so. St.Ack 1. http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/44623/discussion-component-lieutenants > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s: > > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions > > > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give > > chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress > > beyond discussion. > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > AFAIK, we just don't want a committer to +1 their own work. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Don't we need 2 commiters +1 per JIRA? > > > >> Le 2013-12-18 18:23, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> a > écrit > > : > > > >> > > > >> > Why is one +1 not good enough for commit? > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > I gave +1 already > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Waiting for an extra +1 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It's small and there for a while. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Best regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > - Andy > > > >> > > > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > > Hein > > > >> > (via Tom White) > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
