I didn't notice much of a difference as a contributor. +1 vote Best, Wei
> On Jan 30, 2024, at 11:41 AM, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Contrary to my initial expectation of the trouble this would bring in for > reviewers, it has been > pretty nice. I have not faced any issues in marking the conversations as > resolved for the pull > requests I have reviewed and it has even given me a chance to re review > prior to approval. > > I am happy with this overall and my vote will be a +1 > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:56 PM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I personally haven't had too much friction due to the change and it has >> helped me keep track of any comments people have made. I remain +1 to the >> change so far. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Aritra Basu >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 6:11 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >>> Just wanted to remind everyone, we are nearing the end of the trial >> period >>> for "require conversation" feature to be enabled. I have my own >>> observations and examples, but since I was the one to propose it, I am >>> likely biased, so I'd love to hear from others what their feedback and >>> assessment is. Or maybe we need more time to assess it ? >>> >>> I would love to hear your thoughts. >>> >>> J, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 2:20 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> After an initial indentation problem in .asf.yaml it's not working as >>>> expected. So .... let's see how resolving conversations will work for >> us. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:17 PM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wooho! Looking to see how this turns out for airflow 😃 >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 at 1:35 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> As discussed in >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs6mcvpn2lk9w2p4oz43t20z3fg5nl7l I >>> just >>>>>> enabled "require conversation resolution" for our main/stable >>> branches. >>>>> We >>>>>> have not used it in the past so it might not work as we think or we >>>>> might >>>>>> need to tweak something. >>>>>> >>>>>> Generally speaking (if all works) all conversations on PRs should be >>>>>> resolved before we can merge the PR. This "resolving" is encouraged >> to >>>>> be >>>>>> done by the author when they think the conversation is resolved, but >>> it >>>>> can >>>>>> also be done by reviewers or the maintainer who wants to merge the >> PR. >>>>>> >>>>>> We attempted to describe some basic rules and expectations here: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst#step-5-pass-pr-review >>>>>> but undoubtedly there will be questions and issues that we might >> want >>> to >>>>>> solve - so feel free to discuss it here or raise question/issues in >>>>>> #development channel in slack (I am also happy to be pinged directly >>>>> about >>>>>> it and help to resolve any issues/gather feedback). >>>>>> >>>>>> J. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
