Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 216.145.54.173 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of evans@yahoo-inc.com)
From: Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] change bylaws to add "branch committers"
Thread-Index: AQHOgbDFxqlaXS8mFUmBrB3PMBIAHplpnEgAgAEqfoA=
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:31:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CE0D8218.16396%evans@yahoo-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPn_vTtw2T0QkHvxYM6g1agw62qdYrLn06BLDQ5g0GLQCF=9GA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B5A8FBC17A424D42A2FBCF9C65E79023@yforest.corp.yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I like the idea too.  My only concern would be the load it would put on
INFRA to support this, but I don't see hundreds of new committers showing
up so I am +1 on it.

--Bobby

On 7/17/13 12:43 PM, "Eli Collins" <eli@cloudera.com> wrote:

>+1  sounds reasonable to me.  There's an assumption that we won't
>release from feature branches, worth saying that explicitly.
>
>On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org>
>wrote:
>> In some projects at the ASF, a PMC member can grant commit rights on a
>> feature branch to a contributor with minimal overhead. When developing
>> significant or pervasive features, collaboration across linked JIRAs
>> can be difficult for the contributors to maintain and for reviewers to
>> track. Since we already support this model of branched development for
>> Hadoop committers, extending it to newer members of the community
>> seems pretty natural.
>>
>> Given that many of the major feature branches in 2.1 included at least
>> one significant contributor without a write bit, this pattern is also
>> common enough to adjust our bylaws.
>>
>> In one possible protocol, a PMC member can propose a set of
>> contributors for a particular feature branch. If there is no NACK,
>> then those people are given a commit bit on the branch. Other
>> responsibilities for committers- such as reviewing patches, vetoing
>> changes in trunk, etc.- do not apply. The protocol on the branch
>> should not require explicit rules, but contributors should keep in
>> mind that our bylaws also require 3 +1s to merge the branch back;
>> creating a feature branch is not a promise to merge. One would also
>> expect proposed branch committers to have already written some code as
>> the base of the new branch.
>>
>> Thoughts? Modifications to the protocol? -C