You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> on 2018/08/28 13:46:28 UTC
PR Reviews
Hello fineract'ers
Can someone help me to understand few things:
1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be a committer or not) before being merged or a committer can merge his/her PR even if it hasn't being reviewed by anyone?
2. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If yes, i would like to know even few of them) or anyone can review?
Best Regards
Mexina
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>.
Thanks James for driving this topic, summarizing, and documenting.
Ed
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:42 AM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa> wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:12 PM +0200, "James Dailey" <
> jamespdailey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I put the content here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Committer%27s+Zone
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:43 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I believe that James has correctly captured the consensus and would
> > encourage him to document that.
> >
> > James if you need any help finding a good spot in the wiki for that, just
> > shout.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:47 AM Sendoro Juma wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For document... Any change improvement will be done in the document
> > page...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would also like the page to indicate...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:40 AM +0200, "James Dailey" <
> > jamespdailey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
> > >
> > > As Sendoro suggested:
> > > 1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they
> > can,
> > > as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR.
> > Then
> > > 72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a
> principle
> > > of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
> > > their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
> > > requirements are documented.
> > >
> > > 2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough
> > that
> > > they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
> > >
> > > Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
> > > Apache) was that:
> > > 3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome
> > to
> > > pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic
> where
> > > devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of
> dev
> > > themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
> > > others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus.
> > If
> > > not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first
> > let's
> > > keep discussion going.
> > >
> > > I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure
> what
> > > else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete
> the
> > > > decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not
> > need
> > > > to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus
> > and
> > > > document it in wiki.
> > > >
> > > > I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges
> > to
> > > > faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's
> code
> > to
> > > > increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't
> > block
> > > > progress.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Myrle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> > > > >
> > > > > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it
> > from
> > > > now
> > > > > on?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Sendoro
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for more inputs,
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > > > > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that
> > hasn't
> > > > > started to be reviewed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > > > > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice
> versa...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours..
> then
> > > > > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of
> > his/her
> > > > PR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mexina,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting
> it
> > into
> > > > > action with
> > > > > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who
> > can be
> > > > a
> > > > > committer or not)
> > > > > > > > before being merged or a committer can
> merge
> > > > > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural
> > change
> > > > > around PRs and
> > > > > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > > > > contribution, James
> > > > > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus
> policy
> > > > > around committers
> > > > > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects
> > within
> > > > > 72 hours, the
> > > > > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> > > > breaks,
> > > > > it can be
> > > > > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently
> > policy in
> > > > > which all PRs
> > > > > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review
> > before
> > > > > being merged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs
> > (If
> > > > > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs
> but
> > > > > based on Ross'
> > > > > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other
> > projects
> > > > > recently made,
> > > > > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It
> would
> > be
> > > > > great to have a
> > > > > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > > > > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a
> > great
> > > > > way to build
> > > > > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mexina
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile:
> > +1.484.477.8649 <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > > <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > > > > http://mifos.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
*Ed Cable*
President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
*Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa>.
+1
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:12 PM +0200, "James Dailey" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
I put the content here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Committer%27s+Zone
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:43 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I believe that James has correctly captured the consensus and would
> encourage him to document that.
>
> James if you need any help finding a good spot in the wiki for that, just
> shout.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:47 AM Sendoro Juma wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For document... Any change improvement will be done in the document
> page...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would also like the page to indicate...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:40 AM +0200, "James Dailey" <
> jamespdailey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
> >
> > As Sendoro suggested:
> > 1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they
> can,
> > as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR.
> Then
> > 72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a principle
> > of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
> > their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
> > requirements are documented.
> >
> > 2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough
> that
> > they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
> >
> > Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
> > Apache) was that:
> > 3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome
> to
> > pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic where
> > devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of dev
> > themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
> >
> >
> > I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
> > others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus.
> If
> > not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first
> let's
> > keep discussion going.
> >
> > I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure what
> > else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
> > > decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not
> need
> > > to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus
> and
> > > document it in wiki.
> > >
> > > I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges
> to
> > > faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code
> to
> > > increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't
> block
> > > progress.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Myrle
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Ed
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> > > >
> > > > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it
> from
> > > now
> > > > on?
> > > >
> > > > Hello Sendoro
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for more inputs,
> > > >
> > > > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > > > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that
> hasn't
> > > > started to be reviewed.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > > > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> > > > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of
> his/her
> > > PR.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How about that?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mexina,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it
> into
> > > > action with
> > > > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who
> can be
> > > a
> > > > committer or not)
> > > > > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> > > > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural
> change
> > > > around PRs and
> > > > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > > > contribution, James
> > > > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> > > > around committers
> > > > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects
> within
> > > > 72 hours, the
> > > > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> > > breaks,
> > > > it can be
> > > > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently
> policy in
> > > > which all PRs
> > > > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review
> before
> > > > being merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs
> (If
> > > > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> > > > based on Ross'
> > > > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other
> projects
> > > > recently made,
> > > > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would
> be
> > > > great to have a
> > > > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > > > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a
> great
> > > > way to build
> > > > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mexina
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile:
> +1.484.477.8649 <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > > > http://mifos.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
I put the content here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Committer%27s+Zone
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:43 AM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I believe that James has correctly captured the consensus and would
> encourage him to document that.
>
> James if you need any help finding a good spot in the wiki for that, just
> shout.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:47 AM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For document... Any change improvement will be done in the document
> page...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would also like the page to indicate...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:40 AM +0200, "James Dailey" <
> jamespdailey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
> >
> > As Sendoro suggested:
> > 1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they
> can,
> > as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR.
> Then
> > 72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a principle
> > of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
> > their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
> > requirements are documented.
> >
> > 2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough
> that
> > they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
> >
> > Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
> > Apache) was that:
> > 3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome
> to
> > pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic where
> > devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of dev
> > themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
> >
> >
> > I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
> > others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus.
> If
> > not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first
> let's
> > keep discussion going.
> >
> > I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure what
> > else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
> > > decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not
> need
> > > to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus
> and
> > > document it in wiki.
> > >
> > > I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges
> to
> > > faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code
> to
> > > increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't
> block
> > > progress.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Myrle
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Ed
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> > > >
> > > > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it
> from
> > > now
> > > > on?
> > > >
> > > > Hello Sendoro
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for more inputs,
> > > >
> > > > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > > > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that
> hasn't
> > > > started to be reviewed.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > > > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> > > > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of
> his/her
> > > PR.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How about that?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mexina,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it
> into
> > > > action with
> > > > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who
> can be
> > > a
> > > > committer or not)
> > > > > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> > > > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural
> change
> > > > around PRs and
> > > > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > > > contribution, James
> > > > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> > > > around committers
> > > > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects
> within
> > > > 72 hours, the
> > > > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> > > breaks,
> > > > it can be
> > > > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently
> policy in
> > > > which all PRs
> > > > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review
> before
> > > > being merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs
> (If
> > > > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> > > > based on Ross'
> > > > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other
> projects
> > > > recently made,
> > > > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would
> be
> > > > great to have a
> > > > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > > > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a
> great
> > > > way to build
> > > > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mexina
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile:
> +1.484.477.8649 <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > > > http://mifos.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey all,
I believe that James has correctly captured the consensus and would
encourage him to document that.
James if you need any help finding a good spot in the wiki for that, just shout.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:47 AM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> For document... Any change improvement will be done in the document page...
>
>
>
>
> I would also like the page to indicate...
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:40 AM +0200, "James Dailey" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
>
> As Sendoro suggested:
> 1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they can,
> as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR. Then
> 72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a principle
> of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
> their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
> requirements are documented.
>
> 2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough that
> they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
>
> Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
> Apache) was that:
> 3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome to
> pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic where
> devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of dev
> themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
>
>
> I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
> others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus. If
> not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first let's
> keep discussion going.
>
> I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure what
> else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
> > decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not need
> > to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus and
> > document it in wiki.
> >
> > I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges to
> > faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code to
> > increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't block
> > progress.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle
> >
> >
> > On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Ed
> > >
> > > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> > >
> > > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it from
> > now
> > > on?
> > >
> > > Hello Sendoro
> > >
> > > Thanks for more inputs,
> > >
> > > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that hasn't
> > > started to be reviewed.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> > > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her
> > PR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How about that?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mexina,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into
> > > action with
> > > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be
> > a
> > > committer or not)
> > > > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> > > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change
> > > around PRs and
> > > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > > contribution, James
> > > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> > > around committers
> > > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within
> > > 72 hours, the
> > > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> > breaks,
> > > it can be
> > > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in
> > > which all PRs
> > > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review before
> > > being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If
> > > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> > > based on Ross'
> > > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects
> > > recently made,
> > > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be
> > > great to have a
> > > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great
> > > way to build
> > > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mexina
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
> > <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > > >
> > > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > > http://mifos.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa>.
+1
For document... Any change improvement will be done in the document page...
I would also like the page to indicate...
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:40 AM +0200, "James Dailey" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
As Sendoro suggested:
1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they can,
as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR. Then
72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a principle
of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
requirements are documented.
2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough that
they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
Apache) was that:
3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome to
pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic where
devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of dev
themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus. If
not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first let's
keep discussion going.
I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure what
else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
James
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
> decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not need
> to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus and
> document it in wiki.
>
> I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges to
> faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code to
> increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't block
> progress.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>
>
> On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel wrote:
>
> > Hello Ed
> >
> > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> >
> > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it from
> now
> > on?
> >
> > Hello Sendoro
> >
> > Thanks for more inputs,
> >
> > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that hasn't
> > started to be reviewed.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > >
> > >
> > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> > >
> > >
> > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her
> PR.
> > >
> > >
> > > How about that?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mexina,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into
> > action with
> > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > >
> > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be
> a
> > committer or not)
> > > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change
> > around PRs and
> > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > contribution, James
> > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> > around committers
> > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within
> > 72 hours, the
> > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> breaks,
> > it can be
> > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in
> > which all PRs
> > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review before
> > being merged.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If
> > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> > based on Ross'
> > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects
> > recently made,
> > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be
> > great to have a
> > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great
> > way to build
> > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Mexina
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
> <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > >
> > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > http://mifos.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> >
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hi all - I will comment that I think this is directionally great.
As Sendoro suggested:
1) The dev A should try to ask a specific person(s) to review if they can,
as in dev B, and to anyway give the list some time to review the PR. Then
72 hrs later or so, they're able to commit their own PR under a principle
of lazy consensus. This also assumes that people are fully discussing
their ideas for a PR in advance and there is a jira issue where the
requirements are documented.
2) The Committer may decide that the proposed PR is significant enough that
they really want someone to review and they can flag that too.
Also, the other part of my suggestion (and the really cool insight at
Apache) was that:
3) Members of the community who are NOT yet committers would be welcome to
pitch in on the review, thus earning karma. This creates a dynamic where
devs can give feedback and quality review without taking on a task of dev
themselves. +1 for the reviewer.
I also think Myrle is right in that we don't need a vote, but hope that
others will weigh in and consider so we can have a sense of consensus. If
not, our lazy consensus ideal is that we're in agreement...but first let's
keep discussion going.
I'm happy to document the above on wiki if that's useful. Not sure what
else is needed aside from the 1, 2, 3. Thoughts?
James
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
> decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not need
> to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus and
> document it in wiki.
>
> I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges to
> faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code to
> increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't block
> progress.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>
>
> On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
>
> > Hello Ed
> >
> > Thank you for the prompt reply,
> >
> > So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it from
> now
> > on?
> >
> > Hello Sendoro
> >
> > Thanks for more inputs,
> >
> > Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> > reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that hasn't
> > started to be reviewed.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> > >
> > >
> > > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> > committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> > >
> > >
> > > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> > Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her
> PR.
> > >
> > >
> > > How about that?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mexina,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into
> > action with
> > > > some spot-on questions.
> > > >
> > > > Please see my replies inline:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> > <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be
> a
> > committer or not)
> > > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> > his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change
> > around PRs and
> > > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> > contribution, James
> > > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> > around committers
> > > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within
> > 72 hours, the
> > > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it
> breaks,
> > it can be
> > > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in
> > which all PRs
> > > > (from everyone including committers) require a review before
> > being merged.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If
> > yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> > based on Ross'
> > > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects
> > recently made,
> > > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be
> > great to have a
> > > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> > reviewing PRs so we
> > > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great
> > way to build
> > > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Mexina
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Ed Cable*
> > > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
> <(484)%20477-8649>
> > > >
> > > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> > http://mifos.org
> > > > <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> > > >
> > > > >
> >
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
I suggest we give people a chance to give input before we complete the
decision making process. If we converge on common ground we may not need
to vote at all. We may just need someone to summarize the consensus and
document it in wiki.
I like Sendoro's suggestion. I don't see a need to hurry PR's merges to
faster than 72 hours, and I'd like people to look at each other's code to
increase quality, but if we can't get people to do that, it shouldn't block
progress.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 08:03 Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
> Hello Ed
>
> Thank you for the prompt reply,
>
> So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it from now
> on?
>
> Hello Sendoro
>
> Thanks for more inputs,
>
> Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in
> reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that hasn't
> started to be reviewed.
>
> Best Regards
>
> > On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Ed, Mexina,
> >
> >
> > I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e.
> committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
> >
> >
> > However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then
> Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her PR.
> >
> >
> > How about that?
> >
> > > >
> > > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mexina,
> > >
> > > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into
> action with
> > > some spot-on questions.
> > >
> > > Please see my replies inline:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel
> <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Hello fineract'ers
> > > >
> > > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be a
> committer or not)
> > > > before being merged or a committer can merge
> his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change
> around PRs and
> > > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to
> contribution, James
> > > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy
> around committers
> > > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within
> 72 hours, the
> > > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it breaks,
> it can be
> > > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in
> which all PRs
> > > (from everyone including committers) require a review before
> being merged.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If
> yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > > them) or anyone can review?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but
> based on Ross'
> > > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects
> recently made,
> > > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be
> great to have a
> > > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to
> reviewing PRs so we
> > > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great
> way to build
> > > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mexina
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > --
> > > *Ed Cable*
> > > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
> > >
> > > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *
> http://mifos.org
> > > <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> > >
> > > >
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa>.
Hello Ed
Thank you for the prompt reply,
So do we have to vote for James's proposal or we can implement it from now on?
Hello Sendoro
Thanks for more inputs,
Adding to that, i think even non-committers should be involved in reviewing i.e non-committer A can review to any submitted PR that hasn't started to be reviewed.
Best Regards
> On August 28, 2018 at 11:06 PM Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Ed, Mexina,
>
>
> I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e. committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
>
>
> However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her PR.
>
>
> How about that?
>
> > >
> > On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mexina,
> >
> > Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into action with
> > some spot-on questions.
> >
> > Please see my replies inline:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > Hello fineract'ers
> > >
> > > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> > >
> > > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be a committer or not)
> > > before being merged or a committer can merge his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > > being reviewed by anyone?
> > >
> > > > >
> > In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change around PRs and
> > the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to contribution, James
> > had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy around committers
> > being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within 72 hours, the
> > committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it breaks, it can be
> > unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in which all PRs
> > (from everyone including committers) require a review before being merged.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If yes, i would like to know even few of
> > > them) or anyone can review?
> > >
> > > > >
> > Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but based on Ross'
> > insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects recently made,
> > anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be great to have a
> > dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to reviewing PRs so we
> > encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great way to build
> > merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Mexina
> > >
> > > > >
> > --
> > *Ed Cable*
> > President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> > edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
> >
> > *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
> > <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >
> > >
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Sendoro Juma <se...@singo.africa>.
Dear Ed, Mexina,
I would wish we meet at the middle... '"Peer Review", i.e. committer A, ask committer B reviewing his/her PR. and vice versa...
However, as rule like you said if not happen in 72 hours.. then Committer A can proceed especially when s/he is sure Quality of his/her PR.
How about that?
>
> On August 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
>
> Mexina,
>
> Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into action with
> some spot-on questions.
>
> Please see my replies inline:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
>
> > >
> > Hello fineract'ers
> >
> > Can someone help me to understand few things:
> >
> > 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be a committer or not)
> > before being merged or a committer can merge his/her PR even if it hasn't
> > being reviewed by anyone?
> >
> > >
> In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change around PRs and
> the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to contribution, James
> had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy around committers
> being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within 72 hours, the
> committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it breaks, it can be
> unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in which all PRs
> (from everyone including committers) require a review before being merged.
>
> >
>
> > > 1. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If yes, i would like to know even few of
> > them) or anyone can review?
> >
> > >
> Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but based on Ross'
> insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects recently made,
> anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be great to have a
> dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to reviewing PRs so we
> encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great way to build
> merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
>
> Ed
>
> >
>
> > >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Mexina
> >
> > >
> --
> *Ed Cable*
> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>
> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>
Re: PR Reviews
Posted by Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>.
Mexina,
Thank you for picking up on James' thread and putting it into action with
some spot-on questions.
Please see my replies inline:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:46 AM Mexina Daniel <me...@singo.africa> wrote:
> Hello fineract'ers
>
> Can someone help me to understand few things:
>
> 1. Should the PR be reviewed by someone (who can be a committer or not)
> before being merged or a committer can merge his/her PR even if it hasn't
> being reviewed by anyone?
>
In the spirit of James' email requesting a cultural change around PRs and
the feedback from Ross on minimizing any barriers to contribution, James
had proposed and I vouch we adopt a lazy consensus policy around committers
being able to merge their own PRs - if nobody objects within 72 hours, the
committer can merge their own PR. As James puts, if it breaks, it can be
unmerged. This would be a shift from our currently policy in which all PRs
(from everyone including committers) require a review before being merged.
>
> 2. Do we have reviewers of PRs (If yes, i would like to know even few of
> them) or anyone can review?
>
Historically we only allowed committers to review PRs but based on Ross'
insight into some of the breakthrough changes other projects recently made,
anybody can now review a PR (committer or not). It would be great to have a
dedicated team of reviewers but there is no barrier to reviewing PRs so we
encourage anybody to review and comment on PRs - it's a great way to build
merit and pave path towards becoming a committer.
Ed
>
> Best Regards
>
> Mexina
--
*Ed Cable*
President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
*Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>