fluo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying our R-T-C model
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:05:26 GMT
I am in favor of option #1.  I think a model of RTC with a time limit
would be nice, where it if there is not activity in 72hrs that its
approved by lazy consensus.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:54 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 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

Mime
View raw message