Code review required for commits - Discuss.

[simo]

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 18:23 -0400, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthieu Patou <mat at samba.org> wrote:
> > > On 10/11/2012 12:48 PM, Ira Cooper wrote:
> >
> > >> Actual formal suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> No team member commits their own code.  All code will be "signed off"
> > >> by two team members, as a team member you may sign off your own code.
> > >> The "non-author" team member will be responsible for pushing the code.
> > >>   If there are two they can agree among themselves. ;)
> > >
> > > To my french mind the wording seems a bit confusing, are you saying
> > > that:
> > > 1) every author could (should?) add their own sign-off
> > > 2) in total 2 sign-off are need, which means at least 1 non-author
> > > review
> > > (but can be two if the author decide not to sign-off it's patch)
> >
> > That is correct.
> >
> > Time to time we all write things that need some more review, and we
> > know it.  Not signing them off is a way to say "Hey, I want a second
> > reviewer, because I know this is hairy."  I actually have some code
> > sitting around that may trigger that, because of what it plays with
> > :).
> >
> > Also it covers all "non-team" code, they all go through 2 sign-offs.
> >
> > -Ira
> 
> 
> Ira, we discussed this a bit in the IRC channel today, but I'm
> curious.  How does this work for a non-member that has code in Samba?
> Can I maintain the parts of code that I've written without two team
> members signing off?  It's really not a big deal, but we might as well
> get these things ironed out while there is discussion going on.

As far as I am concerned 1 signoff (author) and 1 ack should be
sufficient, independently of who is the author.
However it would be really desirable that who acks is the maintainer.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>