So, what would that look like from a practical perspective? * I presume commits would still associate to a JIRA, right? * Are you proposing changing the strategy from Review then Commit to Commit then Review for these branches?
I know that we have some people who are active in the Hadoop project on the PMC as mentors or are in more established projects with this kind of thing, can you guys chime in about how that looks like and make some suggestions as to some gotchas? Casey On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:19 PM, James Sirota <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at Hadoop's bylaws > > https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > > They have this: > > Significant, pervasive features are often developed in a speculative > branch of the repository. The PMC may grant commit rights on the branch to > its consistent contributors, while the initiative is active. Branch > committers are responsible for shepherding their feature into an active > release and do not cast binding votes or vetoes in the project. > > I would like to have something similar in our bylaws where we can have > feature branches with their own set of committers. We may have > prototype-grade features that need to be rapidly evolved with the feedback > from the community. So we would need a lighter process to evolve these > features rapidly, while still keeping the community involved. A more > rigorous review process can then be applied when the feature is more mature > and is ready to be committed into master. > > What do you think? > > ------------------- > Thank you, > > James Sirota > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > jsirota AT apache DOT org >
