ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Peer review: Victory over Patch Available debt
Date Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:51:50 GMT
In case nobody cares, most likely we have a problem with a contribution or
motivation, not with lazy committers :)
Please remove the "lazy" phrase, since it can be interpreted as "silence as
an agreement" which is always not true.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:13 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi, thank you all for your replies, I'm happy we discussing it, so we could
> clearly understand this policy and how to apply it.
>
> a committer will always merge the change, was it approved by another
> contributor/committer/lazy consensus/vote - does not matter. And a
> committer will be responsible to take a final decision.
>
> There will no any kind of automatic merge.
>
> If a maintainer is on vacation, some other contributor may come to the
> thread and say: Hi, please wait for a review from xxx. Any kind of
> discussion != silence. And lazy consensus is a way to apply change when
> absolutely nobody (except the author) cares about it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> пн, 18 мар. 2019 г. в 12:37, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:
>
> > 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