On 12 July 2017 at 16:45, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
>>> "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
>>
>>
>> S
On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more
than "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are
powerful th
Le 11/07/2017 à 15:21, Rich Bowen a écrit :
On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it
sucks? Nah
I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it
On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean
>> it
>> sucks? Nah
> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
> "code revi
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it
> sucks? Nah
I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
"code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
-Bertrand
-
On 07/10/2017 06:03 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 07/07/2017 09:39 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
for
On 7/10/2017 1:07 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
Cookie licking is the term I prefer, too. It's very well defined here:
http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking
I had the very nicest employee with one only evil tendency. He loved to
squish the cookie dough with the built in patterns so they w
Cookie licking is the term I prefer, too. It's very well defined here:
http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking
-Joan
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Bowen"
To: dev@community.apache.org
Sent: Monday, 10 July, 2017 9:03:33 AM
Subject: Re: Introducing code own
On 07/07/2017 09:39 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
> descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
> necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
> for github, but since they've already r
I think that it is great for projects to use multiple mechanisms to ensure
quick review. This is a fine mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea?
> Seems like picking some default reviewers to look a
Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea?
Seems like picking some default reviewers to look at some code they are
both motivated to review and likely familiar with is generally a good idea.
Would it be different if it were called "Potentially Interested Parties" or
si
+1 Shane. That explains my exact take on it as well.
Regards,
KAM
On July 7, 2017 9:39:51 AM EDT, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
>>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
>>>
fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein :
Ugh. I suggest t
P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
>>
>>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein :
>>>
>>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
>>> horrible idea :-(
>>>
>>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
>
>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein :
>>
>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
>> horrible idea :-(
>>
>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>
>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but wh
s/coffee/code/
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 08:37 Christopher wrote:
> The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic
> assignment to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are
> useful for distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring
> coffee reviews fro
The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic assignment
to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are useful for
distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring coffee reviews
from owners, as a hard prerequisite, though.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 04:19 Gr
fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein :
> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> horrible idea :-(
>
> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
--
Erik
+1. Basically because I don't know why this is a horrible idea.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> horrible idea :-(
>
> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>
--
I like: Like Like - The
18 matches
Mail list logo
