From dev-return-31347-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Tue Jul 9 17:59:29 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B811180675 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 19:59:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 37572 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2019 17:59:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 37557 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jul 2019 17:59:28 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:59:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 27AC31A330B for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:59:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.301 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-he-de.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9HlEVAJv17H for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:59:26 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=148.163.150.38; helo=mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com; envelope-from=jmelchior@pivotal.io; receiver= Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2BAFB7E21C for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114583.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x69Hu4nk011748 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:59:22 GMT Received: from mail-lj1-f198.google.com (mail-lj1-f198.google.com [209.85.208.198]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tjjdptrcy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:59:22 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f198.google.com with SMTP id t2so4756166ljj.13 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=RvInNV3pJJOV0TtygN272VPMNmRbI54irPWsxktTo/U=; b=PpDKzNm4iFv3nJySJgJO1yR2gmz+NvWFB7vBgmtpuj7XbwNOasv5ai/vauMv7y6DLt 489iIpNabvlWULFMkvjsDgl2eJqNQWBYKPq2sD+B2vX4wVvN5ZpG5l93gDSX7TZKKyy5 fr7TQ+wFNyq8/YRmjgQAD2tW+bZuyVYNY9X8OFo2ttQrBhwVUQdCL15Uy/PfbGHJ51zw 2JFnI09xbOOc3p9xPEujTjyZGK4m82KzDHRJB6LQBV8SB6FW29FjSOgwdqJAUVEQ9twx uiDxE/Nj8YwfevwmXkVXRkUhiNR2/6aJCmBoKP+dYlW58VBetY43YoOisqYqceFR2xnf Uvsg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWOA62UA2hz2yDue9L7M4J2wsBxpFHPR4cyzCN7IBOYY9p2v8/a yrvNAsq+RLHPw4uZajhnlrV0YaZwX/HZf71+XLQ65txlbdSDZc1yVIjj51jE5j3HeStUxcGMoJW w93SuCjfBlYruk9J/wlPgq4NDqkKKfP3IW748ED56Iy1fFgkneFIDFw8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c150:: with SMTP id r77mr13161446lff.76.1562695160379; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:59:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzjBVqRjhboMVFKPbtZDbL9J7rIUuLabHDKpnNRWcy8MikXxprbIbkM71C0ak21g8/l3Zz8xppnPwHPqHg2/bE= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c150:: with SMTP id r77mr13161437lff.76.1562695159949; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:59:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11166F83-5763-4541-8967-E223CAAE7D99@pivotal.io> In-Reply-To: <11166F83-5763-4541-8967-E223CAAE7D99@pivotal.io> From: Joris Melchior Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:59:08 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews? To: dev@geode.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6cb07058d4351b9" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-09_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907090212 --000000000000e6cb07058d4351b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 I think it will help keep people engaged. It's no fun when your PR is left to hang and might discourage infrequent/new contributors. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:34 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > Hi All, > > TL;DR > > Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback > within seven days of the last checkin to a PR? > > Long version > > I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a > while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the > longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close ou= t > some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but > reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days. On= e > might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have n= ot > provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat... > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Mark --=20 *Joris Melchior * CF Engineering Pivotal Toronto 416 877 5427 =E2=80=9CPrograms must be written for people to read, and only incidentally= for machines to execute.=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 *Hal Abelson* --000000000000e6cb07058d4351b9--