geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR
Date Thu, 30 May 2019 23:25:07 GMT
Maybe your experience is different but I find it hard enough to get even 
one person to review my pull requests.  I've resorted to merging minor 
changes without a review a few times due to lack of response.


On 5/30/19 3:51 PM, Owen Nichols wrote:
> It seems common for Geode PRs to get merged with only a single green checkmark in GitHub.
>
> According to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html we should not be merging PRs
with fewer than 3 green checkmarks.
>
> Consensus is a fundamental value in doing things The Apache Way.  A single +1 is not
consensus.  Since we’re currently discussing what it takes to become a committer and what
standards a committer is expected to uphold, it seems like a good time to review this policy.
>
> GitHub can be configured to require N reviews before a commit can be merged.  Should
we enable this feature?
>
> -Owen
> VOTES ON CODE MODIFICATION <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification>
> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1 votes are
vetos <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto> and kill the proposal dead
until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
>
> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
, three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass.
>
> Whole numbers are recommended for this type of vote, as the opinion being expressed is
Boolean: 'I approve/do not approve of this change.'
>
>
> CONSENSUS GAUGING THROUGH SILENCE <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
> An alternative to voting that is sometimes used to measure the acceptability of something
is the concept of lazy consensus <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus>.
>
> Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives assent.’ When someone wants
to determine the sense of the community this way, it might do so with a mail message such
as:
> "The patch below fixes GEODE-12345; if no-one objects within three days, I'll assume
lazy consensus and commit it."
>
> Lazy consensus cannot be used on projects that enforce a review-then-commit <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit>
policy.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message