CTR is- and always has been- admissible in a branch. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Given that only one +1 is needed to merge a non-branch patch, he could in > theory convert the entire branch into a single .patch for review. Not that > I'd encourage that, just observing that its possible
That might be correct. If the branch is exploring an idea and a single patch is sufficient for review, then that's not exploiting a loophole but developing in the open. If it's a cynical end-run around the community, then the patch will be vetoed and the change reverted. -C On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > It's interesting to go back to the change in bylaws in 2011 that > introduced the requirement for 3 binding +1s on a branch merge [1]. The > text of that resolution suggests that it's supportive of > commit-then-review if that's what the developers on the branch want to do. > > "Branches' commit requirements are determined by the branch maintainer and > in this situation are often set up as commit-then-review." > > It would also be very much against the spirit of that resolution to > combine it all down into a single patch file and get a single +1. > > "As such, there is no way to guarantee that the entire change set 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." > > --Chris Nauroth > > [1] https://s.apache.org/iW1F > > > > On 3/23/16, 2:11 PM, "Steve Loughran" <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 18:23, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>> A branch sounds fine, but how are we going to get 3 +1's to merge it? If >>> it's hard to find one reviewer, seems even harder to find two. >> >>Given that only one +1 is needed to merge a non-branch patch, he could in >>theory convert the entire branch into a single .patch for review. Not >>that I'd encourage that, just observing that its possible >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Allen Wittenauer < >>> allenwittena...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 10:49 AM, larry mccay <larry.mc...@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That sounds like a reasonable approach and valid use of branches to >>>>>me. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps a set of functional tests could be provided/identified that >>>>>would >>>>> help the review process by showing backward compatibility along with >>>>>new >>>>> extensions for things like dynamic commands? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is going into trunk, so no need for backward compatibility. >>>> >> >> >
