[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions

+1 by me too.

To summarize, the suggested process for new feature contributions is:

* Contributor posts feature description to bugzilla
* Committer sends e-mail to dsdp-pmc asking for OK
* A single PMC member can give the OK for feature inclusion (+1)
  - Any PMC member may veto (vote -1) which would stop the
    process and put it into another review loop

* Contributor posts code on bugzilla
* Committer does initial review and ask Contributor to fix
  basic things like Copyright notices and about.html files
* Committer fills out the Contribution Questionnaire and 
  thus start EMO review.

The two basic tasks (feature-approval / code review) may
happen in parallel. Specifically, PMC can ask contributor 
to post the code for review before giving OK. That's up
to negotiation with the contributor (contributor could 
choose not to give code Open Source if it is not clear
that PMC will accept the new feature).

Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber - WindRiver, Austria
+43(662)457915-85
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:43 PM
> To: dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / 
> Feature Additions
> 
> OK.
> 
> mho 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> >[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Gaff, Doug
> >Sent: 02 June, 2006 21:15
> >To: Bjorn Freeman-Benson; Oberhuber, Martin; DSDP PMC list
> >Subject: [dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / 
> >Feature Additions
> >
> >I'm also ok with that interpretation in the cases below.
> >
> >My request is that anything a single PMC member approves MUST 
> >be copied to dsdp-pmc so the rest of the group is aware.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson 
> [mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:58 PM
> >> To: Oberhuber, Martin; Gaff, Doug
> >> Subject: Re: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions
> >> 
> >> Martin, Doug,
> >> My view is that each PMC member represents the consensus of 
> >the entire 
> >> PMC and thus a single PMC member's approval is sufficient. 
> Of course,
> >it
> >> does mean that you need to be careful who you put on the PMC :-)
> >> 
> >> Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
> >> > Dear PMC & EMO,
> >> >
> >> > After we had some confusion over what was needed in order 
> >to accept 
> >> > a new code contribution into our project repositories 
> (single PMC 
> >> > member approval, or vote among the PMC), Doug Gaff asked 
> >me to check 
> >> > and inform you. So here's what I found.
> >> >
> >> > * The standard toplevel project charter (which also applies for
> >dsdp)
> >> > says:
> >> >
> >> >
> >http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/Eclipse_Standard_To
> >pLevel_Ch
> >> > arter_v1.0.php
> >> >   "The Development Projecess"
> >> >   "[...] The Committers of a Project or component decide which
> >changes
> >> > may
> >> >    be committed to the master code base of a Project or 
> component 
> >> > respectively.
> >> >    The PMC defines the decision process, but that process must
> >include
> >> > the
> >> >    ability for Committers to veto the change. [...] Common 
> >decision 
> >> > processes
> >> >    include:
> >> >    * Retroactive - changes are proactively made by Committers but
> >can be
> >> >
> >> >    vetoed by a single Committer.
> >> >    * Proactive [...]
> >> >    * Thre Positive [...]"
> >> >
> >> > It looks like this mostly applies to code changes done by
> >committers,
> >> > and it looks like most of us are using this first (retroactive)
> >option,
> >> > i.e. let committers just do their work and veto it later if they
> >should
> >> > not like it. Would you agree that this should be our process?
> >> >
> >> > * The Contribution Questionnaire says:
> >> >
> >http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php
> >> >   "[...] for any significant contribution of content to be 
> >committed
> >to
> >> >   an Eclipse project. Prior to completing this 
> Questionnaire, the 
> >> > Committer
> >> >   should have technical agreement from the PMC that the 
> >new code is 
> >> > required.
> >> >   [...] please provide the contact info of the PMC member who has
> >given
> >> >   approval for this contribution"
> >> >
> >> > So the question is what "The PMC" means in this context. The form
> >seems
> >> > to imply that a single member's approval is sufficient. For TM,
> >we've
> >> > had to go through this process for 3 contributions now, 
> >with more to 
> >> > follow since IBM has more code to contribute that was 
> >written before 
> >> > joining the TM project and has not been put into the initial 
> >> > contribution.
> >> > Would you agree that a single PMC member's approval is 
> sufficient?
> >> >
> >> > * The Committer Guidelines also say:
> >> >   http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committerguidelines.php
> >> >   "All content submitted through any channel other than 
> the Eclipse
> >> >   Foundation website must be approved by the PMC, and 
> submitted to
> >> >   the EMO, via the Contribution Questionnaire, for due diligence 
> >> > approval,
> >> >   prior to being committed to the CVS repository. [...] 
> >The analysis
> >> >   performed by the PMC is usually one of a purely 
> >technical nature."
> >> >
> >> > Again, it is not clear whether "the PMC" is a single PMC 
> >member or a 
> >> > vote among all PMC members.
> >> >
> >> > My personal feeling is, that a single PMC member's 
> approval should 
> >> > be sufficient in order to keep the process smooth -- in 
> >most cases, 
> >> > it's only one of the PMC members who has sufficient technical
> >insight
> >> > into the particular area of contribution anyways.
> >> >
> >> > Comments?
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Martin
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >---------------------------------/()\--------------------------
> >---------
> >> > Dipl.-Ing. Martin Oberhuber
> >mailto:martin.oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Member of Technical Staff          Phone  (UTC +1h): +43 (662)
> >457915-85
> >> > Wind River Systems (Salzburg) GmbH              Fax: +43 (662)
> >457915-6
> >> > Jakob-Haringer-Str.8, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
> >http://www.windriver.com
> >> > ----------------------- How Smart Things Think
> >-------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >dsdp-pmc mailing list
> >dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-pmc mailing list
> dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
>