ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Peer review: Victory over Patch Available debt
Date Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:37:05 GMT
Hello, Vladimir.

Thanks for the detailed answer.
I think your statement doesn't differs with Dmitry statement much.
Do we have committer who merge without confidence in patch content?
If yes, they should stop to do it.


пн, 18 мар. 2019 г. в 12:00, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:

> Huge +1 to "We should stress out that a patch should be committed if and
> only if committer is confident with the changes."
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is tough question, and first of all I'd like to ask participants to
> > keep cold head. This is a public question and can be discussed on the dev
> > list safely.
> >
> > On the one hand, it is true that a number of patches are not reviewed
> for a
> > long time, what negatively affects community development. On the other
> > hand, we definitely do not want to sacrifice product quality only because
> > e.g. responsible component owner was on a sick leave or vacation and was
> > not able to review the patch in a timely manner. Some compromise is
> needed.
> >
> > IMO additional comments in HTC may solve the issue. We should stress out
> > that a patch should be committed if and only if committer is confident
> with
> > the changes. Confidence comes from either experience (you worked with
> > component a lot and know what you are doing), or from review by
> component's
> > expert. But if there is an outdated patch and you are not confident
> enough,
> > just don't merge. Let is stay in Patch Available as long as needed.
> >
> > In case of lazy consensus we may ask committers to add comments to the
> > ticket explaining why they decided to merge a ticket without expert's
> > review. This should help us avoid bad commits.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Phrase "Code modifications can be approved by silence: by lazy
> consensus
> > > (72h) after Dev.List announcement." looks unacceptable to me.
> > >
> > > Please roll back the changes and start the discussion at the private
> list
> > > and never do such updates in the future without the discussion.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > sorry for the late reply. Because this process time to time causes
> > > > questions, I decided to add a couple of words to our wiki.
> > > >
> > > > I've added topics about peer review to HTC
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-PeerReviewandLGTM
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it is (more or less) rules of Apache Beam project, as well
> as
> > > > Apache Training(incubating), as well as our current process + Apache
> > > > policies.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 17:46, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I like your suggestion very much! And I want everyone to follow.
> > Let's
> > > > see
> > > > > if it helps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I ask everyone who has submitted tickets for review to add a
> > > comment
> > > > > described by Dmitry to each ticket submitted and see if any
> > additional
> > > > > check is still required and fix remaining issues? I believe this
> > should
> > > > > speed up review process very much.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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