Review should primarily ask: "is this correct?" and "could this be done differently (clearer, faster, more correct, etc)?" Blocking reviews especially, because why else would a reasonable contributor want to block progress?

These questions can of course be asked of implementation details for any CEP. 

I have said before, a proposal to conduct a blocking review of this kind - if very late in my view - would be valid, though timeline would have to be debated.

Reviewers with weaker aspirations have plenty of time available to them - two weeks have already passed, and another couple will likely yet (there isn't a rush). But it is novel to propose that such optional reviews be treated as blocking.

On 30 Jan 2023, at 23:04, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@datastax.com> wrote:


Ooops, I missed copy pasting this reply into my previous email:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:21 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
I'm realizing in retrospect this leaves ambiguity

Another misreading at least of the intent of these clauses, is that they were to ensure that concerns about a design and approach are listened to, and addressed to the satisfaction of interested parties. It was essentially codifying the project’s long term etiquette around pieces of work with either competing proposals or fundamental concerns. It has historically helped to avoid escalation to vetoes, or reverting code after commit. 

It wasn’t intended that any reason might be invoked, as seems to have been inferred, and perhaps this should be clarified, though I had hoped it would be captured by the word “reasonable". Minor concerns that haven’t been caught by the initial review process can always be addressed in follow-up work, as is very common.


Wouldn't you expect such concerns to at least partially now have been covered in  the CEP discussion, up front? I would expect at most at this stage someone could validate that the implementation follows the CEP. But I wouldn't expect a debate on competing approaches at this stage.

henrik
--

Henrik Ingo

c. +358 40 569 7354 

w. www.datastax.com

     


Reply via email to