You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kylin.apache.org by ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org> on 2018/02/02 03:10:32 UTC

[Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Hello, Apache Kylin community,

This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;

The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.

Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See
the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
owners are by component.

Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at least,
a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are absent —
busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.

Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
x-component patch.

Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
the justification for the -1 is addressed.

Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will
update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
Thanks!

-- 
Best regards,

Shaofeng Shi 史少锋

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by kangkaisen <ka...@apache.org>.
+1. Thanks Shaofeng.

It's great. Code review is necessary.

--
Sent from: http://apache-kylin.74782.x6.nabble.com/

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by Jianhua Peng <pe...@apache.org>.
Hi shaofeng,

We can also do the following step:
1. submit issue in https://issues.apache.org;
2. related a review request to https://reviews.apache.org/dashboard;
3. The committer can patch +1 policy in review request;
4. The committer can review patch of issue in review request. 
example:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-1797


On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org> wrote: 
> Hello, Apache Kylin community,
> 
> This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
> 
> The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
> 
> Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See
> the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
> owners are by component.
> 
> Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at least,
> a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are absent —
> busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
> 
> Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
> committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
> x-component patch.
> 
> Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
> the justification for the -1 is addressed.
> 
> Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will
> update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> 
> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by Billy Liu <bi...@apache.org>.
Hi Shaofeng,

I like this idea very much. Do we need official vote?

2018-02-02 11:39 GMT+08:00 Liukaige <et...@gmail.com>:
> ＋1
> This policy will definitely improve the quality of codes. Pretty cool!
>
> 2018-02-02 11:10 GMT+08:00 ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hello, Apache Kylin community,
>>
>> This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
>>
>> The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
>>
>> Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See
>> the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
>> owners are by component.
>>
>> Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at least,
>> a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are absent —
>> busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
>>
>> Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
>> committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
>> x-component patch.
>>
>> Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
>> the justification for the -1 is addressed.
>>
>> Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will
>> update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Kaige Liu(刘凯歌)
>
> *"Do small things with great love." *

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by Liukaige <et...@gmail.com>.
＋1
This policy will definitely improve the quality of codes. Pretty cool!

2018-02-02 11:10 GMT+08:00 ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org>:

> Hello, Apache Kylin community,
>
> This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
>
> The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
>
> Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See
> the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
> owners are by component.
>
> Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at least,
> a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are absent —
> busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
>
> Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
> committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
> x-component patch.
>
> Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
> the justification for the -1 is addressed.
>
> Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will
> update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>



-- 
Best regards,

Kaige Liu(刘凯歌)

*"Do small things with great love." *

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org>.
Hi Jianhua,

Thanks for your suggestion.
In another thread, Billy is proposing to use apache gitbox to host Kylin
repository. After that, we may switch to GitHub PR for review and merge. If
so, I think the review board is no longer recommended.


2018-02-02 17:20 GMT+08:00 ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org>:

> Billy, this is an open discussion; A vote usually happens after the
> discussion. I'm not sure whether it is needed if all members are okay with
> it.
>
> 2018-02-02 14:56 GMT+08:00 Jianhua Peng <pe...@apache.org>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Hello, Apache Kylin community,
>> >
>> > This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
>> >
>> > The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
>> >
>> > Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs.
>> See
>> > the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
>> > owners are by component.
>> >
>> > Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at
>> least,
>> > a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are
>> absent —
>> > busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
>> >
>> > Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
>> > committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
>> > x-component patch.
>> >
>> > Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
>> > the justification for the -1 is addressed.
>> >
>> > Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we
>> will
>> > update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

Shaofeng Shi 史少锋

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org>.
Billy, this is an open discussion; A vote usually happens after the
discussion. I'm not sure whether it is needed if all members are okay with
it.

2018-02-02 14:56 GMT+08:00 Jianhua Peng <pe...@apache.org>:

> +1
>
> On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hello, Apache Kylin community,
> >
> > This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
> >
> > The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
> >
> > Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs.
> See
> > the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
> > owners are by component.
> >
> > Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at
> least,
> > a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are
> absent —
> > busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
> >
> > Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
> > committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
> > x-component patch.
> >
> > Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
> > the justification for the -1 is addressed.
> >
> > Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we
> will
> > update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

Shaofeng Shi 史少锋

Re: [Discuss] Patch +1 Policy

Posted by Jianhua Peng <pe...@apache.org>.
+1

On 2018/02/02 03:10:32, ShaoFeng Shi <sh...@apache.org> wrote: 
> Hello, Apache Kylin community,
> 
> This is another proposal follows the "Component Owner" proposal;
> 
> The below policy is a suggested policy rather than a hard requirement.
> 
> Apache Kylin is made of components. Components have one or more OWNERs. See
> the 'Description' field on the components JIRA page for who the current
> owners are by component.
> 
> Patches that fit within the scope of a single component require, at least,
> a +1 by one of the component’s owners before commit. If owners are absent —
> busy or otherwise — two +1s by non-owners but committers will suffice.
> 
> Patches that span components need at least two +1s before they can be
> committed, preferably +1s by owners of components touched by the
> x-component patch.
> 
> Any -1 on a patch by anyone vetoes a patch; it cannot be committed until
> the justification for the -1 is addressed.
> 
> Please review this policy and share your comments; If no objection, we will
> update it to Kylin's development process and enforce it in the future.
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> 
> Shaofeng Shi 史少锋
>