Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5A3B1749F for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:27:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37361 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2015 16:27:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 37299 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2015 16:27:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 37287 invoked by uid 99); 5 Feb 2015 16:27:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:27:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.212.179] (HELO mail-wi0-f179.google.com) (209.85.212.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:27:13 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l15so11738794wiw.0 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 08:26:51 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=DbcWpRMNMhU9l/us0XgVpH1Bdnj9ygqGmLyGd2rctfg=; b=nEiuQZZIGhwr4Gg04npRPD5nsEqHyj+tsEkvi1djb2nmWpVbeAQ5Tw2k+lgd4JbpsZ ViZjGIxsSDnU7i/pa4aZwc+AOrCFtC6bYSLNBmCyTUhU2C3aPjjFhg5BW+9UVh65rxhG Q1eSf+3ZAcu7Z50xioKMx9zkIfA1YFfWRigE61XAFNUZ9PNfC5xdypvBoi1E9YKXyVgj f0KxpHmx0GVFtQrMiFkhgNh5wgYMU4cWXOG0b9Es5e5o2WVIQJkY0hxxFwviTDKsB/0K hCIrTbk3/TuUyHqfkN6wWaf71K08+e94Dmp7RFSIATGBLbP6GPoqZ9/wjCZZHRfCQrxk VAvA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhMCafiAoXb1rVlIyxpadDFXqSGK7o5xxhikS3Q1/jiTv6gy4fxVxIDseA92jBoAs5yXGu X-Received: by 10.180.90.206 with SMTP id by14mr58657382wib.0.1423153611763; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 08:26:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.217.142.65 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:26:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Max Michels Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:26:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Be more patient with PR and patches in the review To: dev@flink.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Henry, I forgot to leave a message stating that I'm fine with Stephan's changes that would soon be merged into the master. Stephan did not push to the master immediately, so further comments could have been made to the pull request. It would have been more transparent if we had posted the relevant commit. I actually just looked it up in his branch. By the way, I absorbed Till and your feedback and will seriously consider using alternatives to the null value. Best regards, Max On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Ah awesome, I do not about that, thanks for letting me know. Mea culpa from me. > > I think I saw only couple cases but thought I raise the discussions > before I forgot =P > > Thanks for addressing this so quickly, Stephan. > > - Henry > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote: >> Hey Henry! >> >> For pull request 344, I merged it, because I had already built a fix on top >> of it while discussion was going on. >> >> Here is the commit that addresses actually all comments in the discussion >> (plus a bit more) >> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/56b7f85b4f6d522765df19a9710a098092ccde56 >> >> It is applied two commits later than the pull request commit. >> It is true that I forgot to mirror that back into teh discussion. My bad! >> >> If you think that is happening for more pull requests, then please raise >> the issue, because that certainly should not happen. >> >> Greetings, >> Stephan >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Henry Saputra >> wrote: >> >>> HI All, >>> >>> I'd like to bring up a bit concerning flow I am start seeing in the few >>> PRs. >>> >>> I see some PRs had been rush to commit without addressing ALL comments >>> in the PR review. >>> For latest example is the comments Till and I made about using Option >>> instead of null [1] for Max's PR. >>> It is responsibility of the PR creator to address comment raise up in >>> the PR before any commiter could merge it. No need to rush it. >>> >>> Would like to see this more to make sure PRs' issue or concerns are >>> addressed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - Henry >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/344 >>>