; > +1
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >&
gt;> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>&
--------------
> >>> 发件人：vino yang
> >>> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
> >>> 收件人：dev
> >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
>
-
>>> 发件人：vino yang
>>> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
>>> 收件人：dev
>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Peter Huang 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写
14:08
> > 收件人：dev
> > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Peter Huang 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
> >
+1
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
wrote:
> +1
> --
> 发件人：vino yang
> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
> 收件人：dev
> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
>
> +1
>
>
+1
--
发件人：vino yang
发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
收件人：dev
主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
+1
Peter Huang 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
+1
Peter Huang 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Jin Sun 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> > >
> > > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > > >
> > > >
+1
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Jin Sun 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> >
> > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > >
> > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > H
+1
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen wrote:
> +1
>
> Jin Sun 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
>
> > +1, look forward to see the change.
> >
> > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voic
+1
Jin Sun 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> +1, look forward to see the change.
>
> > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
> > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] int
+1, look forward to see the change.
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
> would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
> Flink's website [2].
> I will create
Hi everyone,
Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
Flink's website [2].
I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review
I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at the
project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes to
the patch. If you do not receive any feedback
Still, even with a group of volunteers coordinating well, it is possible to
do better than we currently do, which is the goal.
No hard guarantees, agreed, but reasonable estimates and rules-of-thumbs
can work well...
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:21 PM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> There is no guarantee
There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
provide this in any way on the project level.
As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
voluntarily, and
as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
similar is simply n
I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
should be handled through the official project channel.
I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts",
for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either,
Hi Fabian,
You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
Now I am of the same opinion.
Best,
tison.
Fabian Hueske 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> Hi,
>
> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing lists
> instead of asking just a single expert.
>
Hi,
I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing lists
instead of asking just a single expert.
There's many reasons for that:
* usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the expert
is not available?)
* non-committers can join the discussion and contribu
Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
+1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
first.
(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
feature?
+1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
(3) To
Thanks for separating the threads Stephan!
(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
+1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
first.
(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
feature?
+1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
(3) T
Hi all!
This thread is dedicated to discuss the specific review steps and answers
we want to have during reviews.
It is spun out of the proposal *"A more structured approach to reviews and
contributions".*
Please keep this thread focused on the review steps, NOT on the tooling
(bot, comment/templ
22 matches
Mail list logo
