Hi, I personally feel the same as how Bruce feels. - This will make life harder / inconvenient. - One approval from a person who is experienced in that part of code is more than enough for me. - The workload on the Geode developers is already too high, it is unfair to burden then with more tasks which can be avoided. - The commits are well written with proper description, hence anyone who wants to get familiar with the code can go and read them. - Comparing other projects like Kafka, Hadoop, Spark and their closed pull requests, none of them have 3 approvals. - Only project I saw was Kubernetes (not ASF) who need minimum 2 approvals from experts in the module on which the PR is opened and they have over 2000 contributors.
Personally its a -1 for me as the inconveniences outweigh the benefits of this task. Regards Naba On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:10 AM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 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 >
