I was told that screenshot that I sent earlier got filtered out by the dev list. Basically, the filter puts "notificati...@github.com" in the "From" section, and put "review_reques...@noreply.github.com" in the "Doesn't have" section of the form.
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:36 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 2019, at 10:01 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. > > I strongly disagree with the assertion that we are not following the > Apache Way because we aren’t doing RTC. Please take a look around other > ASF communities and compare that to our approach. I think you’ll see a lot > of similarities in the way we review GitHub pull requests. > > > > > 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… > > Yes of course: community >> code. Can you point me to cases of “cowboy > coding” in Geode? I’m not seeing it but happy to be convinced otherwise. > > > > > 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.” > > IMO lazy consensus does not imply apathy. > > > > Anthony > > -- Cheers Jinmei
