geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR
Date Fri, 31 May 2019 17:42:23 GMT
I was told that screenshot that I sent earlier got filtered out by the dev
list. Basically, the filter puts "notifications@github.com" in the "From"
section, and put "review_requested@noreply.github.com" in the "Doesn't
have" section of the form.

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:36 AM Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 31, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > We chose to make Geode an Apache open source project for a reason.  If
> we no longer wish to embrace The Apache Way <
> https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html>, perhaps we should
> reconsider.
>
> I strongly disagree with the assertion that we are not following the
> Apache Way because we aren’t doing RTC.  Please take a look around other
> ASF communities and compare that to our approach.  I think you’ll see a lot
> of similarities in the way we review GitHub pull requests.
>
> >
> > If we believe that reviewing each other’s code changes is an onerous
> burden of no value, we should question why.   The long-term success of
> Geode depends on sharing of knowledge, not “cowboy coders”.  3 reviews
> means now 3 other people are more familiar with that part of the code…
>
> Yes of course:  community >> code.  Can you point me to cases of “cowboy
> coding” in Geode?  I’m not seeing it but happy to be convinced otherwise.
>
> >
> > If apathy is our thing, Apache does allows for “lazy consensus”, but you
> have to declare that you will be using it, e.g. “This PR fixes
> GEODE-123456; if no-one objects within three days, I'll assume lazy
> consensus and merge it.”
>
> IMO lazy consensus does not imply apathy.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>

-- 
Cheers

Jinmei

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message