Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.

simo idra at
Fri Oct 12 12:28:24 MDT 2012

On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 11:16 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:48:32AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Ok, I'd like to bring this to a conclusion before I have to go
> > on my European trip next week :-).
> > 
> > Sorry for asking for another vote after people have already
> > +1 and -1'ed, but there have been so many discussions about
> > what exactly the details of the policy should be that I think
> > it might be useful to re-iterate exactly what we're voting on.
> > 
> > Just to be clear - the formal proposal, originally from
> > Ira (but slightly tweaked by me after the discussions)
> > is here:
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> > 
> > Tools for code review to be decided amongst reviewers, but any
> > patch posted to samba-technical is an explicit request for review.
> > 
> > Release branches work as they do today, though the + should be treated
> > as a sign-off in bugzilla. All release branch bug commits must contain
> > their bug number in them, so we can track back what happened.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Given this policy (no author push, no free pass) as an initial
> > start I think we can move to a vote.
> > 
> > Yes, there will be things to sort out and discuss as we go
> > along, but we're all reasonable (-ish :-) people and can work
> > out the minor details to make it work as we go along.
> > 
> > So I know many people have voted back and forth on various
> > versions, but I'd like to have a formal Team vote (anyone
> > on the Team with a address) to make a decision on
> > this. No reply means abstention.
> > 
> > Let's wait until the end of next week to allow everyone
> > who might be travelling or not reading email to respond
> > and think carefully about it, and tally the votes on
> > Friday 19th Oct (I'll be travelling on that date so
> > someone else will have probably to do the count, volunteers
> > welcome :-). If it passes let's target implementation on
> > Monday 22nd Oct.
> > 
> > I'm voting +1 (in case you wondered).
> Some irc traffic after this email made me realize I was
> not clear in this message as to exactly what I'm proposing.
> What I'm asking for with this vote is a request for
> the Team to *try* this process out in the same way
> we tried pushing only to autobuild.
> If people are happy with the result then we keep
> the policy. If people are unhappy and it really
> doesn't work for them then we can have another
> proposal to revert, or modify.
> But I think there's enough support for this
> method we really should give it a try. We could
> discuss this until the cows come home, but eventually
> we have to agree if we want to try something specific.
> And being a democracy I don't want to give it
> a try without people at least voting :-).

+1 after clarification.
we start w/o any mandatory hook in git, then if people like the approach
we can also discuss whether we want to add mandatory hooks in git.


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list