We chose to make Geode an Apache open source project for a reason. If we no longer wish to embrace The Apache Way <https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html>, perhaps we should reconsider.
If we believe that reviewing each other’s code changes is an onerous burden of no value, we should question why. The long-term success of Geode depends on sharing of knowledge, not “cowboy coders”. 3 reviews means now 3 other people are more familiar with that part of the code... If apathy is our thing, Apache does allows for “lazy consensus”, but you have to declare that you will be using it, e.g. “This PR fixes GEODE-123456; if no-one objects within three days, I'll assume lazy consensus and merge it." > On May 31, 2019, at 9:05 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Jake, Owen is quoting the "VOTES ON CODE MODIFICATION" section from > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html . "code modification" == > "every PR" is a interpretation that I think would bring the project to a > grinding halt. > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> >> >>> On May 31, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> Apache requires 3 reviews for code changes. Docs and typos likely would >> not >>> fall under that heading. >> >> Where is this listed as a requirement? The link you sent before offered >> guidance on common policies within the organization. >> >>
