+1
On Fri, 25 Sept 2026 at 08:14, Bernardo Botella <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > El vie, 25 sept 2026 a las 3:57, Caleb Rackliffe (<[email protected]>) > escribió: >> >> Alright, so I guess it's >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/CASSANDRA/pages/158863606/Cassandra+Project+Governance >> >> What I would add is a new entry: >> >> 4. Code modifications made solely to existing tests require one non-author >> +1 committer vote. >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 7:29 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> It seems like everyone agrees with the basic idea here. The question is >>> whether we actually need to codify anything/change wikis, etc. If we did, >>> what would be the best place to do that? >>> >>> I have never +1’d a patch without reviewing it, and I guess I’m curious >>> about whether I’m alone here 😅 >>> >>> > On Sep 24, 2026, at 6:33 PM, Francisco Guerrero <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Sounds reasonable to me. +1 >>> > >>> >> On 2026/09/24 23:02:03 Patrick McFadin wrote: >>> >> +1 >>> >> >>> >> Patrick >>> >> >>> >>>> On Sep 24, 2026, at 3:29 PM, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> but it would be confusing if we introduce requirements that are >>> >>>> inconsistent with those we already have. >>> >>> Seems like the requirements we already have are confusing to many now, >>> >>> given some of the chatter on the other thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m +1 to the above relaxations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, at 5:40 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: >>> >>>> To reiterate, currently there is no requirement for committers to >>> >>>> review a contribution. The policy is worded quite precisely: at least >>> >>>> one *contributor* must review a change, and at least two committers >>> >>>> must approve the change (one of whom may be the author). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The approval may consist of trust that the contributor's experience is >>> >>>> appropriate for the patch in question. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am open to the thrust of the refinement, but it would be confusing >>> >>>> if we introduce requirements that are inconsistent with those we >>> >>>> already have. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 2026/09/24 19:44:34 Caleb Rackliffe wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm spinning this out of the other thread we have going right now on >>> >>>>> LLM >>> >>>>> usage... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I'd like to propose that we slightly change the way we deal with >>> >>>>> incoming >>> >>>>> patches that only touch existing tests. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> *Current Policy (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted our >>> >>>>> current >>> >>>>> rules)* >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Fixes from non-committer contributors that only touch existing tests >>> >>>>> in an >>> >>>>> effort to stabilize them still require 2 committer reviewers before >>> >>>>> commit. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> *Proposed Policy* >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Fixes of this type from non-committer contributors only require one >>> >>>>> committer review. CI verification of the effectiveness of the fix is >>> >>>>> still >>> >>>>> required, etc. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> That's it. I'm just looking for ways to make small, reasonable >>> >>>>> changes that >>> >>>>> might free up committer bandwidth for some of the larger, more >>> >>>>> earth-shaking things happening right now. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>
