<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com" target="_blank">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com" target="_blank">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Amar Tumballi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atumball@redhat.com" target="_blank">atumball@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="m_667316846099994182m_-9084384969811362641m_-399051075635329153gmail-">>><br>
>> Further, as we hit end of March, we would make it mandatory for features<br>
>> to have required spec and doc labels, before the code is merged, so<br>
>> factor in efforts for the same if not already done.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Could you explain the point above further? Is it just the label or the<br>
> spec/doc<br>
> that we need merged before the patch is merged?<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>I'll hazard a guess that the intent of the label is to indicate<br>
availability of the doc. "Completeness" of code is being defined as<br>
including specifications and documentation.<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div></span><div>I believe this has originated from maintainers meeting agreements [1] . The proposal to make a spec and documentation mandatory was submitted 3 months back and is documented, and submitted for comment @ <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AFkZmRRDXRxs21GnGauieIyiIiRZ-nTEW8CPi7Gbp3g/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/docu<wbr>ment/d/1AFkZmRRDXRxs21GnGauieI<wbr>yiIiRZ-nTEW8CPi7Gbp3g/edit?usp<wbr>=sharing</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Thanks! This clears almost all the doubts I had :).<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The document above refers to Architects - "<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Roboto;color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Now Architects are approved to revert a patch which violates by either not having github issue nor bug-id, or uses a bug-id to get the feature in etc.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Who are they? What are their responsibilities?<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I had heard reference to this role in a Maintainer's meeting too. It was in the context of People meeting up during FAST18 and discussing about the future of Glusterfs. Clarifications on this role is much appreciated. Specifically,</div><div><br></div><div>* Was there a process to decide on who are they?</div><div>* If yes, when did this happen?<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>The idea is, if the code is going to be released, it should have relevant documentation for users to use it, otherwise, it doesn't matter if the feature is present or not. If the feature is 'default', and there is no documentation required, just mention it, so the flags can be given. Also, if there is no general agreement about the design, it doesn't make sense to merge a feature and then someone has to redo things.</div><div><br></div><div>For any experimental code, which we want to publish for other developers to test, who doesn't need documentation, we have 'experimental' branch, which should be used for validation. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div> [1] - <a href="http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-December/054070.html" target="_blank">http://lists.gluster.org/pip<wbr>ermail/gluster-devel/2017-Dece<wbr>mber/054070.html</a></div></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></span></div><span class="m_667316846099994182HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_667316846099994182m_-9084384969811362641gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_667316846099994182gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</font></span></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.gluster.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>