On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eli wrote: >> Each change was done individually with it's own jira, patch, and >> review. People can review the sub-tasks if they don't want to look at >> the entire patch. The majority of the changes were reviewed before >> they were committed, when that wasn't the case review feedback was >> incorporated in follow-on patches. I don't see how this is any >> different from eg how federation was developed. > That's super. > > The question at hand is does the community want to go ahead with the > 1073 model, or not? My preference is not, but since some in the > community like it, I'd suggest making a small tweak to bring it closer > in line with the intent of our bylaws, which clearly are RTC: "The > code can be committed after the first +1." It's not productive to > re-litigate the individual commits on 1073.
This is the *branch* policy, which if I understand correctly, the branch maintainer sets. For MR-279 Arun used CTR, for HDFS-1052 Suresh used RTC. I think that's OK. IMO the people doing the work on the branch should make the call. Either way the final patch to trunk goes by the normal rules that any patch to trunk follows. Thanks, Eli
