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:
|
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Henrik Ingo
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk David Capwell
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Josh McKenzie
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Benedict
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Henrik Ingo
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk David Capwell
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Henrik Ingo
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk David Capwell
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Ekaterina Dimitrova
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Ekaterina Dimitrova
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Benedict
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Ekaterina Dimitrova
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Benedict
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Josh McKenzie
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Josh McKenzie
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Ekaterina Dimitrova
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk David Capwell
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Ekaterina Dimitrova
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Caleb Rackliffe
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Henrik Ingo
- Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk Henrik Ingo