I think clarifying these semantics is definitely worthwhile. Maybe this 
complicates the process with additional terminology, but the way I've used 
these has been:

+1 - I think this is safe to merge and, barring objections from others, would 
merge it immediately.

LGTM - I have no concerns about this patch, but I don't necessarily feel 
qualified to make a final call about it.  The TM part acknowledges the judgment 
as a little more subjective.

I think having some concise way to express both of these is useful.

-Sandy

> On Jan 17, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey All,
> 
> Just wanted to ping about a minor issue - but one that ends up having
> consequence given Spark's volume of reviews and commits. As much as
> possible, I think that we should try and gear towards "Google Style"
> LGTM on reviews. What I mean by this is that LGTM has the following
> semantics:
> 
> "I know this code well, or I've looked at it close enough to feel
> confident it should be merged. If there are issues/bugs with this code
> later on, I feel confident I can help with them."
> 
> Here is an alternative semantic:
> 
> "Based on what I know about this part of the code, I don't see any
> show-stopper problems with this patch".
> 
> The issue with the latter is that it ultimately erodes the
> significance of LGTM, since subsequent reviewers need to reason about
> what the person meant by saying LGTM. In contrast, having strong
> semantics around LGTM can help streamline reviews a lot, especially as
> reviewers get more experienced and gain trust from the comittership.
> 
> There are several easy ways to give a more limited endorsement of a patch:
> - "I'm not familiar with this code, but style, etc look good" (general
> endorsement)
> - "The build changes in this code LGTM, but I haven't reviewed the
> rest" (limited LGTM)
> 
> If people are okay with this, I might add a short note on the wiki.
> I'm sending this e-mail first, though, to see whether anyone wants to
> express agreement or disagreement with this approach.
> 
> - Patrick
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org

Reply via email to