On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:06 AM Holden Karau wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:34 PM Jungtaek Lim
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Wenchen that there are different topics.
>>
> I agree. I mentioned it in my postscript because I wanted to provide the
> context around why I felt extra strongly abou
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:34 PM Jungtaek Lim
wrote:
> I agree with Wenchen that there are different topics.
>
I agree. I mentioned it in my postscript because I wanted to provide the
context around why I felt extra strongly about the importance of folks
following the explicit rules. It makes it f
I agree with Wenchen that there are different topics.
The policy of veto is obvious, as ASF doc describes it with explicitly
saying non-overridable per project. In any way, the approach of resolving
the situation should lead to voters withdrawing their vetoes. There's
nothing to interpret differen
It looks like there are two topics:
1. PRs with -1
2. PRs with someone asking to wait for certain days.
Holden, it seems you are hitting 2? I think 2 can be problematic if there
are people who keep asking to wait, and block the PR indefinitely. But if
it's only asked once, this seems OK. BTW, sinc
I agree with all that, and would be surprised if anyone here objects
to any of that in principle. In practice, I'm sure it doesn't end up
that way sometimes, even in good faith. That is, I would not be
surprised if the parties involved don't even see the disconnect.
What are the specific examples?
Hi Spark Development Community,
Since Spark 3 has shipped I've been going through some of the PRs and I've
noticed some PRs have been merged with pending -1s with technical reasons,
including those from committers. I'm bringing this up because I believe we,
as PMC, committers and contributors, do
