On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:55:27AM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:02 AM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Branch Merge Expectations - Draft for Discussion > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 04:23 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > >> Do we really need to wait 72 hours for all merge requests? I feel > > >> that slows developers down unless they plan very well. > > > > > > What's wrong with the expectation being that they plan very well? ;-) > > > > > > Remember, "community over code." The point of waiting 72 hours is to > > > give the community the opportunity to review, comment, etc. > > > > > > The point that some merges are less disruptive / intrusive than others > > > is well-taken, though. Perhaps that is something that could be > > > discussed during the feature proposal and decided then. If the > > > community decides up-front that a merge is unlikely to be a problem, > > > then maybe the expectation would be that only 48 or 24 hours needs to > > > pass to allow for review & comments. But it should be explicit, and > > > I'd rather err on the side of allowing the community time to review. > > > > I think the idea is that the people that a review would be targeted at are > > likely > > already involved, or perhaps review has been requested independently prior > > to > > formally requesting the merge. So the question is whether it's necessary to > > open up a 72 hour window where the general dev team has a chance to review > > the code, when presumably all of the people who care should be involved, if > > the > > feature is progressing properly. I'm not entirely sure. > > > [Animesh>] Marcus, thanks for clarifying my opinion is similar to yours. > Those who need to be involved should be engaged early on throughout the > development. If we push MERGE request as the formal mechanism for the > community to review and respond it may be too late and I doubt how much of > that will happen even in 72 hours.
I agree with the comments that it shouldn't be the only time for review and discussion. The more I observe people interacting with master, the more I'd respond to this by asking: Why are we ever in a rush to merge changes in? Shouldn't community consensus and master stability be more important than anything specific feature? -chip
