I think one of the issues here is that there is no upfront discussion about most of the changes that are being proposed. In most cases, a pull request just appears without. This makes the reviews much more intensive and time consuming as frequently there are questions about the validity, nature or rationale of the change. Having short design discussions before starting on these changes would ensure that the nature of the reviews are less involved, thus decreasing the effort associated with reviewing them.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:18 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did a pass through most of the open PRs (I might have missed one or > two). Most had at least a few minor comments so the backlog hasn't gone > down that much, but I expect most will be mergeable very soon. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:44 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Not a full solution, but I've fallen behind a bit. I'm going to plan to > > spend some time tonight at least reviewing PRs I've already done the > first > > pass on and I'll try to pickup some more. > > > > Having more engaged reviewers would be helpful though. > > > > Cheers, > > Micah > > > > On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> hi folks, > >> > >> Liya Fan and Ji Liu have about 24 open Java PRs between them if I > >> counted right -- it seems like the project is having a hard time > >> keeping up with code reviews and merging on these. It looks to me like > >> they are making a lot of material improvements to the Java library > >> where previously there had not been a lot of development, so I would > >> like to see PRs get merged faster -- any ideas how we might be able to > >> achieve that? I know that Micah has been spending a lot of time > >> reviewing and giving feedback on these PRs so that is much appreciated > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Wes > >> > > >
