accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reduced testing burden for bug-fix releases
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:47:21 GMT
On 6/23/14, 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>> 3) As a point of principle, David's veto was completely valid as it stood.
>>> >>While we are individuals it's perfectly reasonable for the PMC to set
>>> >>requirements on what goes into a release we sign off on, even if the
PMC
>>> >>members may not always have ready access to the resources needed to meet
>>> >>that standard.
>>> >>
>>> >>There's no reason David should have to volunteer resources to back up
his
>>> >>veto, especially when it was merely calling for a continuation of the
>>> >>standard we already had set.
>>> >>
>> >
>> >That's why I said "Unless you are willing to supply the funds to pay to
>> >use some resources, I don't feel like this is a valid -1." If he, or
>> >anyone, is willing provide general resources for testing, that's a
>> >different story. Given his response, I assume that is not the case.
>> >
>> >
> But that's the opposite of what I just said. The opposition and the ability
> to find funds are not strongly coupled.

Oh it is. I apologize, I misread your initial statement.

> The lack of funds would hopefully be a convincing argument to try to sway
> someone that we should lower the testing barrier, but they aren't a
> legitimate excuse for invalidating their vote. What if Hypothetical David
> wanted to do fund raising to get resources together? Would you decide on a
> deadline that would allow his vote to be legitimate or not?

I wouldn't have a problem with anyone trying to raise funds for test 
resources, within reason. But, unless someone is actually planning to do 
this, it probably isn't much more than a hypothetical argument that we 
need to spend time discussing.

> The basis for a veto need merely be technical. "We've done this level of
> testing before and it protects our users. We should continue doing it." is
> a perfectly reasonable justification. (I admit I am taking some liberty in
> making parts of David's previous concern more explicit)
>
> BTW, situations like this are a part of why Majority Vote for governance
> decisions are my preference. While I fully agree with David's ability to
> veto I also agree that the community should be able to override him if no
> funding source could be found.

Mime
View raw message