aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Lester <d...@davelester.org>
Subject Re: Commits without reviews
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2015 04:51:42 GMT
I’m -1 to TBR in most cases. Exceptions may be where there is clear community consensus,
and a design document that has been discussed.

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:48 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Sorry for the jargon - "to be reviewed".  It's a commit that is reviewed
> offline, with the expectation that the committer will address any comments
> in a follow-up patch.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I am sorry, but what is TBR?
>> 
>> - Henry
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:00 PM, John Sirois <john@conductant.com> wrote:
>>> I'm +1 to skipping reviews for those portions of the codebase that are
>> hard
>>> to test except via trail and error.
>>> 
>>> I'm -0 to using TBR in an OSS project.  In my mind TBR is for emregencies
>>> of which there should be none in an OSS infra project; these should only
>> be
>>> in the leaves that use the OSS projects where the right answer should
>>> generally be one either roll back or fork/patch/custom private release
>> for
>>> the emergency.
>>> My experience is biased by the 1 spat of TBR I personally did as
>> encouraged
>>> by the core pants committers on the pants project.  This was a series of
>>> ~20 TBR reviews of experimental code in an exp/ dir unused by the
>> mainline
>>> code, but committed to master.  The hope was that these reviews would be
>>> looked at and they have not been ~3 months down the road.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> -Jake
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Over the past few days, i have made several commits to the repository
>>>>> without code review.  Our convention has historically been to perform
>> a
>>>>> code review for any change, however small.  Please see below for some
>>>>> rationale, but i would like to propose that we allow committers to
>>>> exercise
>>>>> judgement on skipping code reviews for changes unrelated to build or
>> test
>>>>> of the main project (e.g. scheduler, executor, client, packaging).
>> What
>>>> do
>>>>> you all think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> As an example, i think the code review process is too much overhead
>> for
>>>>> commits like the ones below.  With these commits i was playing
>>>> whack-a-mole
>>>>> to get alignment between markdown rendering on
>> github.com/apache/aurora
>>>>> and
>>>>> aurora.apache.org.  Skipping code review allowed me to fix things in
>> a
>>>>> much
>>>>> shorter timeframe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> commit 0d9fe18
>>>>> Author: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>>>>> Date:   Wed Dec 23 08:31:27 2015 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Fix string interpolation for release email.
>>>>> 
>>>>> commit df5200b
>>>>> Author: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>>>>> Date:   Mon Dec 21 14:19:48 2015 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Fix formatting and work around anchor link issues in
>> installing.md
>>>>> 
>>>>> commit 21c605e
>>>>> Author: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>>>>> Date:   Mon Dec 21 14:11:10 2015 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Fix anchor links in installing.md.
>>>>> 
>>>>> commit 9326fa6
>>>>> Author: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>>>>> Date:   Mon Dec 21 12:21:37 2015 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Link to install guide from docs/README.md
>>>>> 
>>>>> commit f8e59a4
>>>>> Author: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
>>>>> Date:   Mon Dec 21 12:12:56 2015 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Fix formatting issues in installing doc.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> John Sirois
>>> 303-512-3301
>> 


Mime
View raw message