+1
--
Derek
- Original Message -
From: Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
To: dev@storm.apache.org dev@storm.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
+1 - Bobby
On Friday, February 13, 2015 1:10 AM, Nathan
@storm.apache.org dev@storm.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow a
similar procedure, and a retroactive -1 can be applied, without having it
codified
13, 2015 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
+1 - Bobby
On Friday, February 13, 2015 1:10 AM, Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com
wrote:
+1
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:57 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
Pull request updated.
Here’s a link
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow a similar
procedure, and a retroactive -1 can be applied, without having it codified, but
making it official seems fine to me.
I am +1 for those changes.
- Bobby
On Thursday
Message -
From: Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
To: dev@storm.apache.org dev@storm.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow a similar
procedure
@storm.apache.org dev@storm.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow a
similar procedure, and a retroactive -1 can be applied, without having it
codified
Yes, I would like to codify it. It's not about there being a bug with a
patch – it's about realizing that particular patch does not fit in with a
coherent vision of Storm, or that functionality could be achieved in a
completely different way. So basically, preventing bloat. With that change
I'm +1
- Original Message -
From: Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
To: dev@storm.apache.org dev@storm.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws
That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow
Hi Nathan,
I am not clear on 7 days after the patch was posted .
What happens if someone discover a bug after 7days past the
merge day.
IMO we do this method anyway we've seen 1 or 2 patches get in with an
issue and committers and contributors are happy to
I have no problem with your proposal. Actually I never even considered setting
a timeline for a revert. I've always felt that if there was any problem with a
patch/modification, it could be reverted at any time -- no deadline. If we find
a problem, we fix it. We've reverted changes in the past,
I'm -1 on these bylaws. This commit process encourages merging as fast as
possible and does not give adequate time for dissenting opinions to veto a
patch. I'm concerned about two things:
1. Regressions - Having too lax of a merge process will lead to unforeseen
regressions. We all saw this first
I am fine with this. I mostly want a starting point, and we can adjust things
from there is need be.
- Bobby
On Sunday, February 8, 2015 8:39 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote:
Thanks for putting this together. Proposed bylaws looks good to
me. -Harsha
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at
Thanks for putting this together. Proposed bylaws looks good to
me. -Harsha
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 02:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
Associated pull request can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/419
This is another attempt at gaining consensus regarding adopting
official
13 matches
Mail list logo
