You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu> on 2012/01/05 15:38:38 UTC
2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all--
I suggest as a guideline that two reviewers (or more) should review each patch submitted to reviews.apache.org before the patch is committed. Are you +1 or -1 for this?
Marlon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPBbXtAAoJEEfVXEODPFIDzN0H/2v+v47KvkbGUBOrcElTDWxF
7CKlcomvlUaIY/wxpjfI4QkPpcqvCis/uEFulOgo9sWSD1IFd4EzdoXU+VplnHCL
ehoY3vhfqZLQW5nUOoSbB6aL6ll41Mw65N+h/Zm2kvz3fMvR+faqq8Bee1Jhkc8z
48HXskZojs4WZBgdanovjESMImBsphBeGkdZpCFLH56koiwWKB3Cef9DLEkhtTuq
hhVULC2Z+3MvXsxC+01Y548YSna8CmCZtYU9dOfuA8bnYcjtiFE2qgoxFUPu5aux
rLIQR4ZrOdsocAPTjZ5slGEq183yPeEo1N270FRKOYEdPFJeoBsH8bxc1sa8sFY=
=M6QS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: 2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
Posted by Jasha Joachimsthal <j....@onehippo.com>.
-1
we don't review code by committers either before it is committed. It should
be left to the committer who applies the patch if that patch meets the
standards of the project. It can't harm to give other committers some time
to respond to a patch but I wouldn't make a hard rule to need at least 2
reviews.
On 5 January 2012 15:38, Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all--
>
> I suggest as a guideline that two reviewers (or more) should review each
> patch submitted to reviews.apache.org before the patch is committed. Are
> you +1 or -1 for this?
>
>
> Marlon
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPBbXtAAoJEEfVXEODPFIDzN0H/2v+v47KvkbGUBOrcElTDWxF
> 7CKlcomvlUaIY/wxpjfI4QkPpcqvCis/uEFulOgo9sWSD1IFd4EzdoXU+VplnHCL
> ehoY3vhfqZLQW5nUOoSbB6aL6ll41Mw65N+h/Zm2kvz3fMvR+faqq8Bee1Jhkc8z
> 48HXskZojs4WZBgdanovjESMImBsphBeGkdZpCFLH56koiwWKB3Cef9DLEkhtTuq
> hhVULC2Z+3MvXsxC+01Y548YSna8CmCZtYU9dOfuA8bnYcjtiFE2qgoxFUPu5aux
> rLIQR4ZrOdsocAPTjZ5slGEq183yPeEo1N270FRKOYEdPFJeoBsH8bxc1sa8sFY=
> =M6QS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: 2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
Posted by Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fair enough but let me clarify I'm not complaining about the quality of patches. I'm more interested in making lazy consensus less lazy.
Marlon
On 1/5/12 9:44 AM, Cooper, Sean D. wrote:
> -1
>
> This goes against lazy consensus and adds barriers to getting new people involved.
>
> -Sean
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marlon Pierce [mailto:marpierc@iu.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:39 AM
>> To: rave
>> Subject: 2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
>>
> Hi all--
>
> I suggest as a guideline that two reviewers (or more) should review each
> patch submitted to reviews.apache.org before the patch is committed. Are
> you +1 or -1 for this?
>
>
> Marlon
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPBbiWAAoJEEfVXEODPFIDTLwH/3CpYLmBThy7pfp412x9Si1u
Bt13qlyoQyVY6Ys1UUzpxJWnfAQcY5TlkPRuKbDDH380LyBGdC5xzyZSAx4dA8ON
WBSL8zaqvcVXKMPTPF9XPN0YpB1xQu/+J15C1ptIQvd0FSFGWibJbUDIPhjVJYvD
twCPfKogzaOxi3t/bdzoFWFCr7h4rorcJz700fDOn6ku9UcpdKl1erDkMkSmJple
T5tE2q8Qqr8SCggsKcz6OeOBhr9jjN1StbUCCOcpqEGrDuTauMAjtSDmd5lv4lUs
yoZiXJtC8XC4N0UumAmQ6oipNywwxw9rw2Gy2rfmvsr4ud7/y8HTLRvnpUgVpVA=
=nXLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: 2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
Posted by "Cooper, Sean D." <se...@mitre.org>.
-1
This goes against lazy consensus and adds barriers to getting new people involved.
-Sean
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marlon Pierce [mailto:marpierc@iu.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:39 AM
>To: rave
>Subject: 2+ reviewers for contributed patches?
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hi all--
>
>I suggest as a guideline that two reviewers (or more) should review each
>patch submitted to reviews.apache.org before the patch is committed. Are
>you +1 or -1 for this?
>
>
>Marlon
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPBbXtAAoJEEfVXEODPFIDzN0H/2v+v47KvkbGUBOrcElTDW
>xF
>7CKlcomvlUaIY/wxpjfI4QkPpcqvCis/uEFulOgo9sWSD1IFd4EzdoXU+VplnHCL
>ehoY3vhfqZLQW5nUOoSbB6aL6ll41Mw65N+h/Zm2kvz3fMvR+faqq8Bee1Jhkc
>8z
>48HXskZojs4WZBgdanovjESMImBsphBeGkdZpCFLH56koiwWKB3Cef9DLEkhtTu
>q
>hhVULC2Z+3MvXsxC+01Y548YSna8CmCZtYU9dOfuA8bnYcjtiFE2qgoxFUPu5au
>x
>rLIQR4ZrOdsocAPTjZ5slGEq183yPeEo1N270FRKOYEdPFJeoBsH8bxc1sa8sFY=
>=M6QS
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----