Apache requires 3 reviews for code changes. Docs and typos likely would not fall under that heading.
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:47 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
