Hi folks, As a very new contributor I was originally not going to chime in here, but I've reconsidered.
I am also concerned that this creates a heavier process. While it seems likely that reviewers would often commit a patch they have +1'd, for complicated cases like build overhauls as well as cases where other committers are busy and don't have the time to commit a patch they have +1'd, I think it seems reasonable to trust committers to properly commit their own changes after approval. So I'd like to throw in in my own -1 (non-binding). Regards, Mike On Feb 23, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Given this feedback I'm going to change my vote to a -1 also. As I recall I > voiced concern for the length of time it takes to commit via RTC when it was > first proposed so I'm not in favor of anything that makes it longer. > > Ralph > > On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Tom White wrote: > >> -1 >> >> Sorry I missed the original discussion, but I feel that this makes the >> process more complicated for no real gain. In general we should be >> thinking about how to make it easier to contribute, not raising >> barriers for contributors and committers. >> >> Why should a committer not be able to commit their own work after >> another committer has reviewed and +1'd it? (Which by my reading of >> the amendment would not be allowed.) >> >> I'm not convinced that changing the 3 day timeout to 6 will have a >> beneficial effect on the project. Have you got any cases where the >> current policy caused problems? >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This is a call for VOTE to amend the existing RTC policy for Flume. For >>> details of the stated policy and proposed amendment, see [1] and [2]. The >>> discussion thread where this proposal was discussed is available at [3]. >>> >>> Please cast your votes: >>> >>> [ ] +1 Accept the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy >>> [ ] +0 Indifferent to the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy >>> [ ] -1 Reject the proposed amendment to the stated RTC policy. >>> >>> This vote will run for 72 hours. >>> >>> [1] Stated RTC policy: >>> >>> Code commits for all patches require: >>> >>> Lazy consensus of active committers but with a minimum +1 vote or 3 days >>> >>> passing with no comment. The code can be committed after the first +1 or >>> >>> after 3 days pass with no comment. >>> >>> If the code changes that represent a merge from a branch requires three >>> +1s. >>> >>> >>> Reference: http://markmail.org/thread/wfjpauoffz67k6ut >>> >>> >>> [2] Proposed amendment: >>> >>> >>> - All patches must require at lease one +1 vote from a committer. >>> - A patch authored by a committer should be committed to the source >>> control by another committer who +1s the patch during review. >>> - First provision for no review commit: >>> - If a patch authored by a committer is not reviewed within three >>> days of submission, the patch author must request prioritization of the >>> review on the developer mailing list by other committers. >>> - If another three days pass after a reminder and no one reviews the >>> code, the committer may push the patch in. >>> - If during any of this period a review is started by another >>> committer, then no time-out applies and both the author must address any >>> suggestions and concerns as necessary to get a +1 by the reviewing >>> committer. >>> - Second provision for new review commit: >>> - When cutting a release, the Release Manager will have the authority >>> to make commits to facilitate the release. Such commits should only be >>> to >>> address build and other infrastructure requirements as needed for the >>> release. >>> - Modifying a test or functionality necessary to cut a release would >>> still require the regular review cycle and a minimum of one +1 >>> from another >>> committer. >>> >>> >>> [3] Discussion thread for proposal: >>> http://markmail.org/thread/ri5nigh42ugfg3zd >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arvind Prabhakar >
