You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com> on 2004/02/20 10:19:03 UTC
[vote] voting process
I think we now have enough committers to just use the standard Apache
review process, so I propose that we officially adopt the standard way:
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/voting.html
Background: we were using a slight modification of the Apache voting
procedure in R-T-C mode (prior to joining the Apache incubator) where
two +1 votes were sufficient if there were no votes of -0 or lower plus
a 24 hour waiting period after the second +1 vote to allow a third
person a chance to review and vote.
Rationale:
Getting two people to review something seems easier than it used to
be. And if code scares too many people to be reviewed by two other
people, it's probably too complicated or the author needs to convince
everyone that it has been extremely well-tested.
If it's hard to get people connected with bugs to review code
modifications, maybe we should set up a keyword for that in Bugzilla.
Note this only changes things in R-T-C mode. That is, it only
significantly affects development of stable and during feature and
code freezes prior to branching stable.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux,
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
Re: [vote] voting process
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > Oooh. Do we have to vote to change the voting procedure? ;)
>
> No, you have to decide on a voting procedure :) But AFAICT,
> you are already doing fine without a documented procedure.
> Documenting never hurts though...
My question was more jest then anything else. :O
We do need to get all this stuff documented somewhere though.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Euripides... Euripides pants and I'll shoot ya!
Re: [vote] voting process
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Friday 20 February 2004 17:41 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:36:36PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > On Friday 20 February 2004 10:19 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > > I think we now have enough committers to just use the standard Apache
> > > review process, so I propose that we officially adopt the standard
> > > way:
> >
> > +1 -- that 24h-thingy made me forget about my patches ;)
>
> Oooh. Do we have to vote to change the voting procedure? ;)
I think this falls under "procedural changes" :)
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
RE: [vote] voting process
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:41 PM
> To: spamassassin-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [vote] voting process
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:36:36PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > On Friday 20 February 2004 10:19 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > > I think we now have enough committers to just use the standard Apache
> > > review process, so I propose that we officially adopt the standard way:
> >
> > +1 -- that 24h-thingy made me forget about my patches ;)
>
> Oooh. Do we have to vote to change the voting procedure? ;)
No, you have to decide on a voting procedure :) But AFAICT,
you are already doing fine without a documented procedure.
Documenting never hurts though...
Sander
Re: [vote] voting process
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:36:36PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> On Friday 20 February 2004 10:19 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > I think we now have enough committers to just use the standard Apache
> > review process, so I propose that we officially adopt the standard way:
>
> +1 -- that 24h-thingy made me forget about my patches ;)
Oooh. Do we have to vote to change the voting procedure? ;)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Knobs? ... Keep it clean." - Prof. Brown talking about faucets
Re: [vote] voting process
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Friday 20 February 2004 10:19 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> I think we now have enough committers to just use the standard Apache
> review process, so I propose that we officially adopt the standard way:
+1 -- that 24h-thingy made me forget about my patches ;)
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>