If somebody volunteers to be the caretaker for 1.5.0, is there an implicit expectation that they would take on the responsibilities for branch-1 as well?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > (Moving discussion to DISCUSSION thread from "NOTICE: made branch-2.0 > from..." -- my fault for starting it in wrong place) > > A while back, Andrew made a PROPOSAL for 'branch RM's [1]. I like this > suggestion. I see it as a means of avoiding the hell that was 2.0.0 where > its taken near on a year to stabilize (first alpha was last year) because > it has over 5k JIRAs in it; RMs can help keep their branch tidy and free of > flotsam. > > Andrew added more to his notion of 'branch RM' over in the NOTICE thread. I > repeat it below: > > "For a while leading up to 1.4.0 I was effectively the branch-1 RM in > practice. Slacked off a bit since, but I'd like to continue with that if > you're agreeable. I think that branch RM role involves informally: > - Keeping an eye on commits to branch. Periodic review of recent commits. > Not acting as a gate on commits and not needing to be pinged or in the loop > for every commit, except perhaps for short periods of time around branching > for new minors. > - Keeping an eye on test stability. Undertaking get well projects like > bisecting and reverting offending commits to resolve test suite decay. > - Periodically kicking off new minor releases. Depends on branch and need > for what's on deck." > > Interested in what folks think. > St.Ack > > 1. *https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/247697bcfb97adeeec2d14241856ca > 7a77a167c9efe0dbc83b0a746f@%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/247697bcfb97adeeec2d14241856ca > 7a77a167c9efe0dbc83b0a746f@%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E>* >
