As a writer, I'm a big user of Lazy Consensus: If no one objects, I'm merging my change. Requiring multiple reviews discourages minor improvements. In the doc realm, I'm inclined to check in typo fixes and grammar corrections without even bothering with the PR process, but I do it for the community-ness of it. But requiring three reviews to correct a spelling error is a big waste of the reviewers' time.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:12 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > On May 30, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > Some folks have found it really helpful to have the PR author schedule a > walk-through of the changes to give reviewers more context and explain the > thinking behind the changes. > > This can’t be policy unless the walkthrough is scheduled with the whole > dev@geode community. You could say in your PR that a walkthrough will > happen at a given time and location (online) so that interested parties > could watch and ask questions. This strikes me as extremely onerous for > most PRs. For large scale refactors, features, etc. maybe it makes sense, > though for those a discussion thread should have happened on dev@geode > first. > > -Jake > >
