hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:22:53 GMT
+1

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aaron T. Myers <atm@cloudera.com> wrote:

> +1 from me as well.
>
> Thanks for running this vote, Jakob.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to Eli's wording.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> +1   Sounds good to me.
> >>
> >> Something like the following?
> >>
> >> Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
> >> ==================================================================
> >>             <p>Lazy consensus of active committers, but with a minimum
> of
> >> -            one +1. The code can be committed after the first
> +1.</p></li>
> >> +            one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1,
> unless
> >> +            the code change represents a merge from a branch, in which
> case
> >> +            three +1s are required.</p></li>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
> >>> like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
> >>> of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk.
> >>>
> >>> The rationale:
> >>> Feature branches are often created in order that developers can
> >>> iterate quickly without the review then commit requirements of trunk.
> >>> Branches' commit requirements are determined by the branch maintainer
> >>> and in this situation are often set up as commit-then-review.  As
> >>> such, there is no way to guarantee that the entire changeset offered
> >>> for trunk merge has had a second pair of eyes on it.  Therefore, it is
> >>> prudent to give that final merge heightened scrutiny, particularly
> >>> since these branches often extensively affect critical parts of the
> >>> system.  Requiring three binding +1s does not slow down the branch
> >>> development process, but does provide a better chance of catching bugs
> >>> before they make their way to trunk.
> >>>
> >>> Specifically, under the Actions subsection, this vote would add a new
> >>> bullet item:
> >>> * Branch merge: A feature branch that does not require the same
> >>> criteria for code to be committed to trunk will require three binding
> >>> +1s before being merged into trunk.
> >>>
> >>> The last bylaw change required lazy majority of PMC and ran for 7
> >>> days, which I believe would apply to this one as well.  That would
> >>> have this vote ending 5pm PST July 18.
> >>> -Jakob
> >>>
> >>
>



-- 
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message