Hello Rob, On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:39 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:34 AM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Last Wednesday at a Solr committers meeting, there was general >> agreement... >> >> I'd prefer we have one "Commit Policy" document for Lucene/Solr and only >> call out Solr specifics when applicable. This is easier to maintain and is >> in line with the joint-ness of Lucene TLP. So I think it should move to >> the Lucene cwiki. Granted there is a possibility this kind of content >> might move into our source control somewhere but that possibility is a >> subject for another day. >> > > -1 ... you even went so far as to discourage lucene committers from > attending that meeting, and now its turned around as if its consensus > everywhere and should be applied to lucene too? > I'm looking back over what I wrote. I suppose it's this self-quote that bothered you?: > This particular committer's meeting has a particular subject/theme. So > as Erick indicated, while all committers are invited, I think if you're > not interested in the subject then I'm sure you can find a better use of > your time. Personally I think what I stated there is reasonable. More importantly, both me and Erick also expressly declared all committers are welcome. If I actually meant otherwise then I wouldn't have said so. > I don't think changing things to review-then-commit will help. > I don't think *anyone* wants ASF's RTC due to the "consensus approval" requirement with three +1's -- http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit *My proposal says this up front clearly* (I think). Did you read it? I don't think Shawn read it either -- I'm not calling for an official change to RTC. Here's the link again: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Commit+Policy+-+DRAFT I can copy-paste it here if you like which would also serve to snapshot exactly what I'm talking about. I observe that we seem to mostly follow this guideline document already, particularly what I observe in Lucene (less so Solr). No not all the details and all the particulars I wrote on what constitutes "minor", but the gist of the review/approval. We don't just commit at will today; we wait for reviews and get them. I'd like what we do today (in Lucene) written down more clearly for everyone's benefit -- new/interested people and ourselves. This document is my attempt to do that plus raising the review/approval guideline norms *just a little bit* (IMO). For Solr it's more than a little bit, granted. Then I can point others at this, and if I see behavior that got no review for something where it was warranted (according to documented guidelines), I can reference this. Lets say we accept these new guidelines. After six months, we can change/loosen our practices and edit this document accordingly. It's just a guideline document. (Credit to Thömas on this good point) ~ David
