+0 Proposal as written says "...for changes that would require peer review before committing...". If this means that minor changes (in my case, typo repairs are the common case) can be checked in without going through a PR process, I can go with the group decision. Still see no compelling need to retire the Review Board, which (as pointed out in the discussion thread) has its uses and advantages.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io> wrote: > -1 > > It places an unnecessary burden on committers and git history is the > definitive record of changes to the code so github pr history isn't really > very useful. Also, Review Board is a much better tool for reviewing code > than a github PR. > > > > On 6/11/17 9:51 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > >> After a few days of discussion [1] this thread has quieted down so I would >> like to take it to a vote. The proposal is to modify the workflow of >> committers to match that of non-committers such that committers shall: >> >> * Perform all work in progress on branches in their personal forks on >> GitHub rather than directly on the ASF Geode repositories. >> >> * Submit GitHub pull requests, following all current rules for pull >> requests, for changes that would require peer review before committing to >> the production branches. >> >> * Register their GitHub accounts with the ASF so that committers can be >> identified in the GitHub mirror repositories. >> >> >> Please cast your vote. >> >> [ ] +1 Approve >> [ ] +0 No opinion >> [ ] -1 Disapprove (and reason why) >> >> >> [1] [DISCUSS] Using Pull Requests over Review Board >> <http://geode.markmail.org/message/row5hgz5zw2ooadl?q=list: >> org%2Eapache%2Egeode%2Edev+discuss+pull> >> >> -Jake >> >> >
