In case nobody cares, most likely we have a problem with a contribution or motivation, not with lazy committers :) Please remove the "lazy" phrase, since it can be interpreted as "silence as an agreement" which is always not true.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:13 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, thank you all for your replies, I'm happy we discussing it, so we could > clearly understand this policy and how to apply it. > > a committer will always merge the change, was it approved by another > contributor/committer/lazy consensus/vote - does not matter. And a > committer will be responsible to take a final decision. > > There will no any kind of automatic merge. > > If a maintainer is on vacation, some other contributor may come to the > thread and say: Hi, please wait for a review from xxx. Any kind of > discussion != silence. And lazy consensus is a way to apply change when > absolutely nobody (except the author) cares about it. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пн, 18 мар. 2019 г. в 12:37, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > Hello, Vladimir. > > > > Thanks for the detailed answer. > > I think your statement doesn't differs with Dmitry statement much. > > Do we have committer who merge without confidence in patch content? > > If yes, they should stop to do it. > > > > > > пн, 18 мар. 2019 г. в 12:00, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > Huge +1 to "We should stress out that a patch should be committed if > and > > > only if committer is confident with the changes." > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This is tough question, and first of all I'd like to ask participants > > to > > > > keep cold head. This is a public question and can be discussed on the > > dev > > > > list safely. > > > > > > > > On the one hand, it is true that a number of patches are not reviewed > > > for a > > > > long time, what negatively affects community development. On the > other > > > > hand, we definitely do not want to sacrifice product quality only > > because > > > > e.g. responsible component owner was on a sick leave or vacation and > > was > > > > not able to review the patch in a timely manner. Some compromise is > > > needed. > > > > > > > > IMO additional comments in HTC may solve the issue. We should stress > > out > > > > that a patch should be committed if and only if committer is > confident > > > with > > > > the changes. Confidence comes from either experience (you worked with > > > > component a lot and know what you are doing), or from review by > > > component's > > > > expert. But if there is an outdated patch and you are not confident > > > enough, > > > > just don't merge. Let is stay in Patch Available as long as needed. > > > > > > > > In case of lazy consensus we may ask committers to add comments to > the > > > > ticket explaining why they decided to merge a ticket without expert's > > > > review. This should help us avoid bad commits. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > Phrase "Code modifications can be approved by silence: by lazy > > > consensus > > > > > (72h) after Dev.List announcement." looks unacceptable to me. > > > > > > > > > > Please roll back the changes and start the discussion at the > private > > > list > > > > > and never do such updates in the future without the discussion. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:29 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for the late reply. Because this process time to time > causes > > > > > > questions, I decided to add a couple of words to our wiki. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've added topics about peer review to HTC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-PeerReviewandLGTM > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it is (more or less) rules of Apache Beam project, as > > well > > > as > > > > > > Apache Training(incubating), as well as our current process + > > Apache > > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 17:46, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your suggestion very much! And I want everyone to > follow. > > > > Let's > > > > > > see > > > > > > > if it helps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I ask everyone who has submitted tickets for review to add > a > > > > > comment > > > > > > > described by Dmitry to each ticket submitted and see if any > > > > additional > > > > > > > check is still required and fix remaining issues? I believe > this > > > > should > > > > > > > speed up review process very much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
