Billy, this is an open discussion; A vote usually happens after the discussion. I'm not sure whether it is needed if all members are okay with it.
2018-02-02 14:56 GMT+08:00 Jianhua Peng <[email protected]>: > +1 > > On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, Apache Kylin community, > > > > This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal; > > > > The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement. > > > > Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. > See > > the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current > > owners are by component. > > > > Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at > least, > > a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are > absent — > > busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice. > > > > Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be > > committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the > > x-component patch. > > > > Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until > > the justification for the -1 is addressed. > > > > Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we > will > > update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future. > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > Shaofeng Shi 史少锋 > > > -- Best regards, Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
