Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.

[simo]

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 samba.org 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.

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