> 4. Code modifications made solely to existing tests, documentation, or > comments only require one non-author +1 committer vote. wdyt about the revision including Shailaja's feedback?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2026, at 5:32 AM, Shailaja Koppu via dev wrote: > +1 for tests and any non-code PRs like docs/readme/comments etc. This will > help unemployed engineers trying to show OSS experience in their resume or > employed engineers trying to increase their breadth etc during onboarding to > C*. > > > > > On Sep 25, 2026, at 8:12 AM, Maxim Muzafarov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >
