Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
> Yes, it is always wise to notify the mailing list about upcoming major changes. While not every change will bring about discussion, in those cases where there is discussion, it can reduce the need to have to rework PRs. So it is often both courteous and efficient at the same time. Agreed. Cheer

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
I don't believe there is such a thing as "lazy consensus". IMO nobody should be merging their own pull requests. And 72 hours is not enough time for feedback, especially for a major change. It is quite easy for someone to be away from work email for 72 hours with just 1 day vacation/sick time

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
I agree with you on most of your opinions, but some of them are a bit ideal for an open source project such as Apache Groovy IMHO. I feel that it is really hard to please all... P.S. One of my big projects has already used groovy 3.0.0-alpha-4, so far so good. Cheers, Daniel.Sun - Apache

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Cédric Champeau
I agree that no "big change" should be merged without review. 72h may sound a lot, but it's not. Le dim. 27 janv. 2019 à 22:01, Daniel.Sun a écrit : > I agree with you on most of your opinions, but some of them are a bit ideal > for an open source project such as Apache Groovy IMHO. I feel that

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
Luckily according to current HR of groovy core team, it's hard to archive a big change which need more than 72 hours to review... - Apache Groovy committer Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me Twitter: @daniel_sun -- Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Cédric Champeau
It's less about time to review than it is about being available, thinking about the change and accepting it. Especially you mention "big changes". If you can qualify what you mean by that, we can discuss. Otherwise to me it should be a no-go: reviews should be done. And, if you're blocked, sending

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
Let's have a look at some examples to clarify the "big changes": 1) Removing unnecessary boxing and unboxing modifies a lot of files, it is a big change but it is just a refactoring, so I think it can apply the lazy consensus strategy. 2) Supporting switch expression of Java 12 will impact groovy