From the discussion so far, it seems that we can adopt the review-
then-commit policy that requires at least two +1 from committers and
no -1 from committer. If the contributor is already a committer, then
it requires just one extra +1 and no -1 from committers. This may
change latter when we recruit more committers. Should we vote for this?
Also, it seems that git could be a better choice than svn. Does the
majority of ASF project use svn? It's not hard to switch to svn. I
either case, somebody must create a git or svn repo and a wiki page.
Here is the progress so far:
1) Ed has graciously volunteered to convert the MRQL html doc to wiki.
Thanks Ed!
2) I have fixed the Copyright info in the source: I have replaced
source file headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files based on ASF policy.
3) I have made the Makefile more generic so it can compile any file
dropped in the src directory. Do you think it's a better idea to
switch to Maven? I have never used it.
I am planning to split the source files to smaller logically
independent files and write a developer's roadmap -- this may take few
weeks.
Leonidas
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
+1 for review-then-commit.
+1 on one "+1" from another committer and no "-1"s if the
contributor is a committer. For the case where contributor is not a
committer, is it still one "+1" from a committer?
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Edward J. Yoon
<[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for R-T-C.
> before a commit (ie, at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos).
IMO, one "+1" from another committer is enough.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Leonidas Fegaras
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear MRQL-workers (miracle-workers),
> Thank you for volunteering to support the incubation of the MRQL
> project. I think it's time to start discussing some of the details.
> First, I would like to discuss the idea of adopting the
> Review-Then-Commit policy for MRQL, which requires consensus
approval
> before a commit (ie, at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos).
> The initial committers would be those listed in the MRQL Incubation
> proposal. Let's discuss this during the next few days and then I
will
> open it for vote.
> Thank you
> Leonidas Fegaras
>
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon
