Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E46D89FD7 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 92607 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 18:00:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 92541 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 18:00:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 92534 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2012 18:00:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:00:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.160.48] (HELO mail-pw0-f48.google.com) (209.85.160.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:00:40 +0000 Received: by pbcxa12 with SMTP id xa12so6942939pbc.35 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hossman_lucene@fucit.org designates 10.68.211.202 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.211.202; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hossman_lucene@fucit.org designates 10.68.211.202 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hossman_lucene@fucit.org Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.211.202]) by 10.68.211.202 with SMTP id ne10mr70234910pbc.164.1329847219082 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.211.202 with SMTP id ne10mr58413947pbc.164.1329847219043; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from bester.local ([65.78.136.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c9sm16598726pbr.65.2012.02.21.10.00.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:00:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:00:14 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Hostetter To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: CMS peer review process In-Reply-To: <1329381091277-3749488.post@n3.nabble.com> Message-ID: References: <1329381091277-3749488.post@n3.nabble.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjXXPxeRdyK0VV5/dEXVru89vHggzSxn20CeC6B0wzP5m20jz48soZF5HSHMCqQCcsKS4k X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : What shall be the procedure of peer review of CMS website changes? Is it : examine patches in JIRA just like source code is, or is it to commit changes : and observe them on the staging server http://lucene.staging.apache.org/ ? : (or perhaps it depends) "it depends" the biggest value of hte CMS is making small rapid changes -- just like small bug fixes, you shouldn't need peer review to make small tweaks, if people don't like it they can revert. If you are making seriously large substantial changes (ie: "i think we should completley re-org the site like this...") then i think patches in Jira make sense ...both of thse situations are just like they use to be in the forrest days from a review process. the new middle ground we have is the "staging site" ... if you have a change that you think is simple and not relaly worth a prolonged discussion over a patch, but you'd still like to have at least one other set of eyeballs on, edit it and push it to staging -- then ask for review on email/irc. worst case scenerio someone else comes along to make a minor edit and sees your changes on staging ... which is an automatic review if they then choose to "publish" both their changes and yours. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org