Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.

[Michael Adam]

my vote: +1

question:
what kind of vote is this intended to be?
unanimous? majority? ...

comments:
* I don't yet understand the reasons for "-1"s
* it makes no sense to require review but add a free pass after a
  timeout
* Productivity need not drop when not pushing ones own
  patches, because one can work on a private branch until
  patches hit master.

More later..

Cheers - Michael

On 2012-10-12 at 10:48 -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).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Jeremy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20121013/473daa0c/attachment.pgp>