Page Comparison

...

1. Someone editing a given submodel commits an update to gerrit.
1. Only the current model editor should be committing updates unless permission is granted by the current editor for someone else to temporarily be the editor to perform some update.
2. A reasonable message is included in the commit, explaining what was updated.
   1. Given there is only a few characters allowed in the first line of commit, the second line of text should probably be used. 
3. Generally, a separate commit should be performed for each submodel.   An exception to this would be if the multiple models relate as part of some effort (some cross-model contribution).
4. IISOMI modeling guidelines must be followed, and reviews must assure that the guidelines are being adhered to before discussion occurs in some working team.
2. The committer assigns reviewersOne primary independent reviewer and perhaps a backup reviewer is assigned to perform the +1
1. At least two reviewers, but more is fine.   Available reviewers are Hui Deng , Xu Yang , guochuyi Kevin Scaggs .
   Note:  Only one +1 is required, regardless of the number of reviewers assigned
3. The +1  reviewer cannot be the submodel editor or the editor performing the papyrus commit (if different from the submodel editor).
The +1 reviewer cannot be from the same company as the editor performing the commit.
4. Reviewers should be familiar with the subject area of the contribution if possible.   This suggests they participate on the weekly calls related to the contribution.   It is noted that there may be exceptions to this (work on some concept may be "new" to all).
5. If another editor has been active in the same domain in recent time, they should be the +1 reviewer.
If the commit is broad in scope, adding all the reviewers impacted by the contribution is appropriate. 
1. The
same process would be followed (one +1, then merge), and if an additional reviewer finds a problem, a plan can be formulated to address (next commit or whatever).The submodel owner is responsible for performing the +2 after the independent +1 is completed.If the editor performing the commit is not the submodel editor, the editor should also assign the submodel editor as a
1. committer
on the gerrit change request.The committer
1. must also supply a gendoc output of the submodel (or the relevant portion of the submodel), supplying it to the reviewers to facilitate easier approval.  
   1. Gendoc output to be placed in Model tools \ Papyrus \ Gendoc Files Related to Gerrit Commits
   2. Providing such output will allow for quick reviews, and not require the reviewers to attempt to download the committed files into a papyrus environment for review.
   3. It is assumed that the gendoc output reflects the model / model fragment being updated.
6. Reviewers
1. Reviews are done with a 'first come, first serve" approach with a couple of exceptions
   1. The +1 reviewer cannot be from the same company as the editor performing the commit.
   2. If the editor performing the commit is not the regular submodel editor, the regular editor should perform the +2, verify, and merge.
2. The first available reviewer examines the request, including the gendoc output (2b above) as appropriate, and performs the +1.
3. The second reviewer (whoever next notices the request) is responsible for performing the +2, verify, and merge.
4. Keep in mind that commits are part of a "work in progress", not necessarily a finished work.
5. Reviews should be completed quickly to facilitate further development (suggest 24 hours or less).
6. For contributions of new material not yet socialized and/or not fully developed, a fairly 'relaxed' review with perhaps some suggestions is very reasonable. 
7. If a model conflict occurs, the submodel editor decides how to resolve.

Note:  In the past, Deng Hui has carried the burden of merging all commits.   This proposal will relieve him of that this burden.