On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Leonidas Fegaras <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Yes, this would be our first vote. But I think It's a little early for us to start voting. Maybe next week? > 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, Git seems already used for many Apache projects (S4, Crunch, Tajo, .., etc.). We might want to check with [email protected] once again. > 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. +1 for maven. It is simplest way to manage dependencies, deploy the site, and build artifacts. > 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 >> > -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon
