Antoine,
Why do only some EG members have access to merge PRs?
On May 3, 2016 9:44 AM, "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>
wrote:
Hi guys,
As you know we plan to release CDI 2.0 before the end of January. It let's
us around 6 months to complete the spec.
I think we really should find a way to enhance our focus on reviewing
proposal and code.
Adding special Hangout meetings proved itself a good solution to go that
way, but I think we should also work on rules adoption for PR.
So I propose that:
- PR should stay open at least one week.
- It could be merged (after at least a week) if 4 EG members votes for it
(+1 on the PR).
- As no one is error proof if someone has an objection to a PR to be
merged he could raise his concern and justify his objection.
- The following discussion should lead either to a revision of the PR or a
+1 from the objector
- If no agreement is reached, to avoid blocage a vote will be called on
this ML to adopt or reject the PR.
I'm not a big fan of over processed team work, but we really have to
deliver.
For the moment I think we can avoid having too much process on ticket
choice (we don't have enough contributors to go that way)
Wdyt ?
Antoine
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.