From dev-return-887-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@fluo.apache.org Thu Aug 29 03:54:58 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D88B5180181 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 05:54:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 89728 invoked by uid 500); 29 Aug 2019 03:54:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@fluo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@fluo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@fluo.apache.org Received: (qmail 89717 invoked by uid 99); 29 Aug 2019 03:54:56 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) (10.10.3.159) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 03:54:56 +0000 Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com (mail-qt1-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 2F93D595A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 03:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id u34so2204435qte.2 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:54:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXG4HYazogSREiEqgSifAkAQZqjKBm1uhMncxz8W36Btno68gFo 8PLbXAK/5jVcFPvyD0RrZ+wgtP0XfWY81I6LwDk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5CxLRYpM5hICviD+D5XO6Xgvsq0D8Lmpm8DQ8attNXo/eYkk9GPoy9e8Y2cD3Rsz7A4m0kudfC3x64A6GIJ0= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c2ce:: with SMTP id c14mr5216310qvi.243.1567050895922; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:54:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Christopher Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:54:39 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: [DISCUSS] Clarifying our R-T-C model To: fluo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Devs, I noticed that https://fluo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/ links to https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit to describe R-T-C. That link references https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval which describes a voting procedure that requires 3 +1s and no vetoes. Voting periods are at least 72 hours at ASF, to allow sufficient time for feedback. So, we are currently not following the foundation's definition of review-then-commit. Rather, what we are doing is something else entirely. Our procedure is to ensure that at least one committer (other than the author) has looked over a change and has had the opportunity to examine it and has no objections. There is no vote, and certainly not a requirement for 3 +1s. Actually, it's not even clear to me that we require the reviewer to be a committer, although I think I've been assuming it would be. I think this model is fine, but since it doesn't align to the ASF definition, there's a few things we can or should do to bring some clarity to our R-T-C model: 1. We can provide our own definition of review-then-commit, 2. We can start actually following the definition from the Foundation, or 3. We can switch to a commit-then-review model formally, while informally still encouraging reviews first (obviously, non-committers have to have stuff reviewed still) I'm in favor of option #1... but option #3 is appealing to me, because it's how we operate in Accumulo right now, and I'm starting to get concerned that we don't have a sufficient number of reviewers active right now. We're still pretty small in number, and it might be hard to get reviews at times when people's activity levels fluctuate downward, which can stall work. (Growing our size is a problem to be addressed, but that's off-topic for this thread.) Thoughts? Christopher