On 2 October 2013 21:34, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey > <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2] >> but >> > making sure to emphasize that projects are allowed to have different >> rules >> > for all of them (or is the code-commit veto required for all projects). >> > Any objections to me trying to do that? >> >> Rather than a "rewrite", I suggest proposing small, incremental, reversible >> changes. Governance is easy to mess up. >> >> It would be so nice if we could write unit tests for governance docs to >> make >> sure that as they evolve they still solve all the old problems they were >> intended to address. >> >> > That's a really interesting perspective: governance rules as code, that can > be unit tested. Heh I like that.
And how does one test that code is working correctly? One of the most important tests is to check it against the functional specification. In the case of governance docs, I think the functional spec. is a list of what the rules are intended to achieve. This information should be part of the document. Knowing what the rules are intended to achieve can help resolve ambiguities in the rules. > -- > Regards, > -- Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
