I agree with wilder. ~Rajani
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Wilder Rodrigues < wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > We should stick to the 2 LGTM. No matter if that a bug fix or a new > feature. > > Currently we have PRs where 1 LGTM was given, but them the second reviewer > asked questions and raised concerns which were not answered accordingly. If > the 1 LGTM would have been applied, all concernes would have been ignored. > > IMO, a PR siting for 7 or more days without a reply to the reviewer’s > questions/concerns should be closed without merge. In case it’s really > needed, the author will give it some attention and reopen it. > > Cheers, > Wilder > > > > On 14 Jul 2015, at 14:23, Koushik Das <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > For bug fixes I feel 1 LGTM should be fine provided there is a Jira > ticket with all details and the request is pending for more than a > specified time (may be 7 days). For new features the existing process > should be fine. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:w...@widodh.nl] > > Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2015 17:42 > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PR list length > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > On 14-07-15 13:56, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> H, > >> > >> It is a concern to me that the list of PRs on our github page is > >> beyond a single page (maybe configurable but now a t a very reasonable > >> 25). I think we should adhere to a discipline of not having any PRs > >> open after the weekend. This is putting a very strong statement > >> outthere, I realize. A PR might be under heavy construction and very > >> big (which should result in a discussion about splitting it!) I > >> Discussed this with Wilder and the idea popped up to have a seven day > >> limit on (undicussed) PRs. This is however more sensible from an > >> automation point of view then from a development discipline point of > >> view. A regular cycle of closing-or-discarding PRs makes more sense. > >> The list of PRs remaining open is slowly but very steadily growing > >> over time. > >> > >> thoughts? > >> > > > > I agree. I took the time to look at most of the PRs this morning, but a > lot of stuff is about code I don't know, so it's hard to vote LGTM on such > a PR. > > > > But I agree, 25+ PRs open is not good. > > > > Wido > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1 > > > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVpPx1AAoJEAGbWC3bPspC5hsQAK1GxhgnHleFvexMOWOxZA3v > > 8XfR3Sh78DJZvG9hjY9eP4TauWJ6mBoVR5Mxe9M0eWqJ2Uy28PacIaUq4LXfrAY9 > > z5c+iq4Whi+FUz5mMtmL6x/3MqBlN8Ag9TDnZVE/pwDB1g8m27l23NhK6c5tKpXt > > CWh7xTqtCDVGnAO8eA1kk7aLicj3Wd8XaQzR4W7xDxf4XSN6lXEMfnFenD6ShqcA > > ktHOwI8r7hFt/M6+eZ7YmBF3dosw0mMH1lgBKaq+jEMSjHJWyVUu4UHxsx1Z9Fup > > nyYEEx8U5nYCgl72Zvmtvzth3Es2LoKy1ly19r6YlycMPtqO1T51qcwq3zcdKrpG > > 0pRPnEuQhMhUhJvuKOd05pEvISOf8Eilm+3k9W9ZxxYtgCe2cqgrn+0/60Uw0fzG > > 2U2lWlO4p4tYOKUbTSZTqsjYeeA0FvLV1Ib0wq8rwyZTHpxVpdWaz2lR2X3SltZH > > JJJsOdtMUxV3lzIBSL7fKjVi9TqbSgrd6QKio3jBl34cw8PStWIRZilIq+fglRnx > > BC0epH1YJAB3BzIeChe1kHKzrqADgo0arJt8N4n/Lza6+kW68k7hDx195XUgo3c0 > > OsKm2jkoo7JtURaOo6/lF+tFBngYdgTyWCFSer/UReycx/xnZcSI0DIz+QbYMOrj > > +Lg/AwfNPbXnNAFVQlrF > > =rzba > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
