jean-frederic clere wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
Another more precise draft.
Patches which would go to review would be:
- API changing patches (any protected or above signature change) on
APIs which are accessible to the user either from confirguration or
programmatically
yes, makes sense
- any other commit for which a committer asks for the RTC procedure
should be rollbacked if it hinders concurrent work or is to be
included in a release tag, and go through the RTC procedure
-1. There is a huge risk for "I simply don't like it, revert it".
Anything that is to be rolled back, should be backed up by a technical
reason. So in this case, how do you define "it hinders concurrent work".
Either we do RTC or we don't, but having a vague definition in between,
doesn't make sense.
That is not: "I simply don't like it, revert it" that is "I think it
needs review, revert it and let's discuss it".
I would proposed that the one that does the -1 should come with another
fix in few days for a fix for a PR, another proposal for API/conf
changes and participate to the discussion on the -1 otherwise the -1
would become is invalid.
The patch does not need to be reverted when under review, except if
there's a need to tag a release or something similar. In that case,
including such a patch would not be acceptable. The other case is if it
causes development issues, but it should be extremely rare (as API
changing patches would get reviewed before being committed).
I also don't think any reason needs to be given for voting against a
particular patch under review. If only one committer votes "no", then
you need one additional "yes" (4 total), which sounds achievable. If two
committers vote "no" (most likely you would be in a veto situation at
the moment) then it's still doable if everybody else wants it. With 3
against, the community is basically split, and it seems impossible to
follow through without changes to convince the other camp.
The general idea is to be able to disagree with something without using
something absolute like the veto mechanism, since the only thing that is
going to be examined (at least at the moment) seems to be its validity.
Also, if a vote is tied to a justification, then any discussions will
immediately switch over from technical to "let's show the justification
is not valid, so that we can ignore it" mode.
If it turns this new mechanism does not work, then I think new proposals
can be made to change it quite easily.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
