On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > - What constitutes a valid review? > This page http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit > suggests that a review is a consensus approval. I am very concerned by > that definition if we're talking every commit means we need a vote. For > the vast majority of commits this just seems to onerous and too time > consuming and frankly to me takes some of the fun out of developing. If > for us a review is simply that a 'committer' has reviewed the code then I > am perfectly happy with this and I am thinking this is in-line with the > model Benson described for his dayjob "'make branch, submit pr, get review, > merge'" > > One point of clarification here. On the RtC ASF projects I've been on, the review votes are called "consensus" because a -1 is a binding veto, not because a formal VOTE is needed. The number of binding +1s has varied as well. Rather than the ASF defined three +1s, generally only one is needed. So long as we agree as a community on the number, it probably is not of much consequence long term. -- Sean
