You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@reef.apache.org by Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> on 2016/03/15 23:38:35 UTC
[VOTE]
Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
Request process shall be optional.
Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
`[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
This vote will be open for 48 hours
[] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
[] +0 no opinion
[] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
Markus
Re: [VOTE]
Posted by Brian Cho <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
>
> Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
> Request process shall be optional.
>
> Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
> be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
> has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
> `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
>
> This vote will be open for 48 hours
>
> [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
> [] +0 no opinion
> [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
>
> Markus
>
[RESULT][VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de>.
The vote passed with the following 5 +1 votes:
* Markus Weimer
* Byung-Gon Chun
* Anupam
* Mariia Mykhailova
* Brian Cho
And 1 +0 vote:
* Dongjoon Hyun
I have filed REEF-1266 to make sure our wiki gets updated with this result.
Markus
On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
>
> Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
> Request process shall be optional.
>
> Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
> be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
> has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
> `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
>
> This vote will be open for 48 hours
>
> [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
> [] +0 no opinion
> [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
>
> Markus
>
Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Dongjoon Hyun <do...@apache.org>.
Sure. I know that it's optional and depends on the author's intention. So I
give +0. :)
At least, for me, I'll make a PR always.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Mariia Mykhailova <ma...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> To clarify, I think any code which is not part of REEF itself (for
> example, scripts in dev folder and JavaScript in website) still should be
> reviewed.
> Major changes (for example, what I suggest in REEF-1252) should probably
> also be reviewed.
> CI configuration files (Travis/AppVeyor) are gray area, they are not code
> but not documentation either.
>
> @Dongjoon
> I think the suggestion is to make reviews optional, not to prohibit them
> altogether - if the author of the change feels it needs to be
> double-checked, they still can send a PR, just without JIRA.
>
> -Mariia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dongjoon Hyun [mailto:dongjoon@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:27 PM
> To: dev@reef.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
>
> +0
>
> I think PR should be a minimum requirement since I make mistakes sometime
> and I like to be reviewed. :) However, if the community want, I have no
> objection.
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Anupam <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I thought this should have been subsumed by the [MINOR] tag we agreed on.
> >
> > On 15 March 2016 at 15:52, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> (and fixed the subject :-) )
> > >>
> > >> Markus
> > >>
> > >> On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> > >> > Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> > >> > non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and
> > >> > Pull Request process shall be optional.
> > >> >
> > >> > Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether
> > >> > consensus
> > can
> > >> > be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no
> > >> > review has taken place, such commits must have commit messages
> > >> > starting with `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
> > >> >
> > >> > This vote will be open for 48 hours
> > >> >
> > >> > [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review [] +0
> > >> > no opinion [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
> > >> >
> > >> > Markus
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Byung-Gon Chun
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anupam
> > Bellevue, WA
> > Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570
> >
>
RE: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Mariia Mykhailova <ma...@microsoft.com>.
+1
To clarify, I think any code which is not part of REEF itself (for example, scripts in dev folder and JavaScript in website) still should be reviewed.
Major changes (for example, what I suggest in REEF-1252) should probably also be reviewed.
CI configuration files (Travis/AppVeyor) are gray area, they are not code but not documentation either.
@Dongjoon
I think the suggestion is to make reviews optional, not to prohibit them altogether - if the author of the change feels it needs to be double-checked, they still can send a PR, just without JIRA.
-Mariia
-----Original Message-----
From: Dongjoon Hyun [mailto:dongjoon@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:27 PM
To: dev@reef.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
+0
I think PR should be a minimum requirement since I make mistakes sometime and I like to be reviewed. :) However, if the community want, I have no objection.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Anupam <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I thought this should have been subsumed by the [MINOR] tag we agreed on.
>
> On 15 March 2016 at 15:52, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> (and fixed the subject :-) )
> >>
> >> Markus
> >>
> >> On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> >> > Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
> >> >
> >> > Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> >> > non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and
> >> > Pull Request process shall be optional.
> >> >
> >> > Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether
> >> > consensus
> can
> >> > be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no
> >> > review has taken place, such commits must have commit messages
> >> > starting with `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
> >> >
> >> > This vote will be open for 48 hours
> >> >
> >> > [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review [] +0
> >> > no opinion [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
> >> >
> >> > Markus
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Byung-Gon Chun
>
>
>
> --
> Anupam
> Bellevue, WA
> Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570
>
Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Dongjoon Hyun <do...@apache.org>.
+0
I think PR should be a minimum requirement since I make mistakes sometime
and I like to be reviewed. :)
However, if the community want, I have no objection.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Anupam <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I thought this should have been subsumed by the [MINOR] tag we agreed on.
>
> On 15 March 2016 at 15:52, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> (and fixed the subject :-) )
> >>
> >> Markus
> >>
> >> On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> >> > Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
> >> >
> >> > Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> >> > non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
> >> > Request process shall be optional.
> >> >
> >> > Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus
> can
> >> > be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
> >> > has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
> >> > `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
> >> >
> >> > This vote will be open for 48 hours
> >> >
> >> > [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
> >> > [] +0 no opinion
> >> > [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
> >> >
> >> > Markus
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Byung-Gon Chun
>
>
>
> --
> Anupam
> Bellevue, WA
> Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570
>
Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Anupam <an...@gmail.com>.
+1
I thought this should have been subsumed by the [MINOR] tag we agreed on.
On 15 March 2016 at 15:52, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> (and fixed the subject :-) )
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
>> > Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
>> >
>> > Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
>> > non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
>> > Request process shall be optional.
>> >
>> > Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
>> > be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
>> > has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
>> > `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
>> >
>> > This vote will be open for 48 hours
>> >
>> > [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
>> > [] +0 no opinion
>> > [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
>> >
>> > Markus
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Byung-Gon Chun
--
Anupam
Bellevue, WA
Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570
Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> +1
>
> (and fixed the subject :-) )
>
> Markus
>
> On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> > Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
> >
> > Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> > non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
> > Request process shall be optional.
> >
> > Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
> > be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
> > has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
> > `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
> >
> > This vote will be open for 48 hours
> >
> > [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
> > [] +0 no opinion
> > [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
> >
> > Markus
> >
>
--
Byung-Gon Chun
Re: [VOTE] Documentation commits without code review
Posted by Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de>.
+1
(and fixed the subject :-) )
Markus
On 2016-03-15 15:38, Markus Weimer wrote:
> Based on our recent discussion, I'd like to call the following vote:
>
> Allow [Documentation] commits: These are commits that only change
> non-code files (README, website, ...). For these, the JIRA and Pull
> Request process shall be optional.
>
> Instead, it is up to the committer to make a call whether consensus can
> be assumed or a formal review period should be observed. If no review
> has taken place, such commits must have commit messages starting with
> `[Documentation]` instead of the JIRA id.
>
> This vote will be open for 48 hours
>
> [] +1 Allow [Documentation] commits without JIRA and review
> [] +0 no opinion
> [] -1 Do not allow [Documentation] commits because ...
>
> Markus
>