On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Some discussion between Nicholas, Aaron, and me started in the > comments of HDFS-3168 which I think is better exposed on the mailing > list instead of trailing an already-committed JIRA. > > The question at hand is what the policy is with regarding our > review-then-commit policies. The bylaws state: > >>>> > *Code Change* > A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a > committer. This includes source code, documentation, website content, > etc. Lazy consensus of active committers, but with a minimum of 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. > <<< > > The wording here is ambiguous, though, whether the committer who > provides the minimum one +1 may also be the author of the code change. > If so, that would seem to imply that committers may always make code > changes by merely +1ing their own patches, which seems counter to the > whole point of "review-then-commit". So, I'm pretty sure that's not > what it means. > > The question that came up, however, was whether a non-committer > contributor may provide a binding +1 for a patch written by a > committer. So, if I write a patch as a committer, and then a community > member reviews it, am I free to commit it without another committer > looking at it? My understanding has always been that this is not the > case, but we should clarify the by-laws if there is some ambiguity. > > I would propose the following amendments: > A committer may not provide a binding +1 for his or her own patch. > However, in the case of trivial patches only, a committer may use a +1 > from the problem reporter or other contributor in lieu of another > committer's +1. The definition of a trivial patch is subject to the > committer's best judgment, but in general should consist of things > such as: documentation fixes, spelling mistakes, log message changes, > or additional test cases. > > I think the above strikes a reasonable balance between pragmatism for > quick changes, and keeping a rigorous review process for patches that > should have multiple experienced folks look over. > > Thoughts? >
Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe file a jira with the proposed diff to the bylaws xml and we can have quick vote on it here. Thanks, Eli
