One reason for lacking reviews in the PR might be that people are filtering out notifications from github. I've had this problem for a long time before I finally figured out a way to filter out noses "other than" the review requested emails. Here is a snapshot of my filter setup. Hopefully it will be useful to you:
[image: Screen Shot 2019-05-31 at 10.07.26 AM.png] On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:02 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 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. > >> > >> > > -- Cheers Jinmei
