accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Havanki (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1834) ReviewBoard guidelines
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:17 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13810525#comment-13810525
] 

Bill Havanki commented on ACCUMULO-1834:
----------------------------------------

Whatever the rules, I think they should complement the rules for committing patches submitted
to JIRA. The more rigorous the rules for RB end up, the less they should be for patches submitted
after review, so that committers don't have to exert the same effort twice. If a patch doesn't
go through RB, it should face more scrutiny before commit.

The Apache voting rules say 3 +1s for a code mod, but that seems high. I like 1 or 2 ship-its.
Maybe if it gets only 1, the patch committer must not be the 1 ship-it.

What changes don't need to go through RB? Documentation? Commenting?

> ReviewBoard guidelines
> ----------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-1834
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1834
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: docs
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>              Labels: Documentation
>             Fix For: 1.6.0
>
>
> We currently don't have any guidelines on how we should be using reviewboard.
> For example -- How many "ship it"'s are needed to merit consensus? How do we make sure
that reviews get applied after consensus is reached?
> Figure out what to do and then write it down.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Mime
View raw message