Right, I mean the initial PR that moves the other branches in. I don’t think we expect that pr to get reviewed.
On August 30, 2017 at 10:26:00, Nick Allen ([email protected]) wrote: Yes, I think you still need +1s. The same PR rules apply to the feature branch PRs. The only difference being that as a reviewer/committer I won't expect the same level of quality, documentation, etc to get my +1 for a PR that is destined for a feature branch. And of course, each reviewer/committer is free to set the expectations they have for handing out a +1, in all cases. At least, that is how I have been thinking about this process. I am open to alternatives though. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:59 AM Otto Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > So the question is: Can I commit the PR or do I need some +1’s to rubber > stamp it? > > > On August 29, 2017 at 10:01:13, Otto Fowler ([email protected]) > wrote: > > And finally : https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/720 > > > > On August 28, 2017 at 10:24:43, Otto Fowler ([email protected]) > wrote: > > > https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/feature/METRON-1136-extensions-parsers > > > On August 27, 2017 at 12:39:15, Otto Fowler ([email protected]) > wrote: > > To start in creation the feature branch I have done the following: > > 1. I have created a new confluence area to track feature branches : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Feature+Branches > 2. I have created a new set of confluence pages for this feature branch: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Metron+Extension+System+and+Parser+Extensions# > 3. I have created a jira for this feature branch : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1136 > > The idea is that we want to document the feature branch effort and concept > ( wiki ) and track the work in jira. > > There is redundancy and gaps between the wiki and the PR’s, but that is > unavoidable for an effort that has been going on so long. > > I plan on adding more to the wiki, but also would encourage others that > have been involved in the review to do so as well ( or anyone interested > etc ). Also any comments > on this approach for Feature Branches are welcome. > > As Nick said, we are not necessarily creating a process for all future > branches. > > I think this is enough structure to start the branch off at least. > > > > >
