Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> 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.
+1.

We follow a slightly relaxed version of the above in FreeIPA and SSSD
(an author could push after review is obtained and one-liner patches
could be pushed as well but sent for notification purposes to the list
anyway). It has worked very well so far, also leading to rethinking or
withdrawing suboptimal patches as original author has some time to
cold down his mind when waiting for or discussing a review.

-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy