I might be completely off, but I think what others are referring to here is that 2 committers is the minimum bar, and for any commit there could be other contributors wishing to review some part or even in full what is being merged, and we would always allow for that, within reasonable time limits.
Since most contributors would not have paid attention to a feature branch, the result is that that additional review happens now. If it happens / if anyone is interested. But if nobody expresses any concerns or asks for time to look into something specific, then I agree that the reviews that have already happened in the feature branch are sufficient and there isn't a need for a new full blown review. As far as I can tell, this email thread is exactly that process and I imagine was at least one of the reasons to send this heads up email? henrik On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 5:23 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: > What Benedict says is that the commits into cassandra/cep-15-accord and > cassandra-accord/trunk branch have all been vetted by at least two > committers already. Each authored by a Cassandra committer and then > reviewed by a Cassandra committer. That *is* our bar for merging into > Cassandra trunk. > > On 20 Jan 2023, at 12:31, Mick Semb Wever <m...@datastax.com> wrote: > > >> These tickets have all met the standard integration requirements, so I’m >> just unclear what “higher pre-commit gateway” you are referring to. >> > > > A merge into trunk deserves extra eyeballs than a merge into a feature > branch. > > We can refer to this as a "higher pre-commit gateway" or a "second pass". > Either way I believe it is a good thing. > > > -- Henrik Ingo c. +358 40 569 7354 w. www.datastax.com <https://www.facebook.com/datastax> <https://twitter.com/datastax> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/datastax/> <https://github.com/datastax/>
