+1
Am 03.03.2017 um 02:13 schrieb Joe Witt:
> We are following rtc and specifically the form of rtc we adopted long ago
> for commits to Nifi. It simply requires a +1 before a merge and no
> apparent lack of consensus. Even then should there be disagreement after
> the fact there are procedures to resolve. Consensus forming is central to
> the apache way. Consensus forming in most cases and in healthy communities
> can be achieved on most matters without formal votes.
>
> What is generally not a good practice is open jira, add PR, get +1, merge
> all in such a tight time window that folks could not reasonably discuss or
> review. So you'll notice that at least a 24 hour window should pass on
> prs. There are some truly trivial cases where this isn't really necessary
> and fortunately no matter what we can always resolve issues even after a
> commit.
>
> I definitely am a fan of the model we have centered in on.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Mar 2, 2017 7:00 PM, "Andre" <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> There's no doubt the Sign-off-by is redundant (as GIT itself holds that
>> information, reason why GH is still able to show the information without
>> the sign-of-by stamp), however, I agree with your view around positive
>> action and easy to refer as Bryan pointed.
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. If no-one opposes, I will update the
>> Contributor Guide regarding requirement vs. recommended as it seems to have
>> caused a small to confusion to some of the committers. If the message is
>> that consistency in this space is not required, than lets reflect this in
>> the documentation.
>>
>> On a side note, it may be worth to note that a "+1 before merge" model
>> would sit in between CTR and RTC - which technically seems to require
>> Consensus Approval (i.e. TTBOMK means 3 positive votes + lack of negative
>> votes in ASF lingo).
>>
>> Formality of number aside, there's no doubt our model is working like a
>> charm! :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM, James Wing <jvw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I recommend the practice. Although the signoff may not be authoritative,
>>> it requires a positive action that suggests you purposefully merged the
>>> commit, as opposed to commits you might have accidentally merged and
>>> pushed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
