I forgot whether one can do a second +1 if he/she already did +1. If that is possible, yeah, your approach is more clear and easy to understand.
Best, Taewoo On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:28 PM Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed. That clearly helps. > However, if there’s more than one round of review we’d need to remove > reviewers and re-add them. > A 2nd +1 seems easier (and less error-prone) in that case. > > Cheers, > Till > > > On Jun 7, 2019, at 22:04, Taewoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That clearly works. Or why don't we add reviewers only if the self-review > > is done? :-) > > > > Best, > > Taewoo > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mike Carey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 ! > >> > >>> On 6/6/19 6:07 PM, Till Westmann wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I've proposed an addition to our code review steps on > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/Code+Reviews > >>> > >>> The only change from the steps we've been doing so far is the use of a > >>> "+1" code review by the author of a change to indicate that the > >>> self-review is done (avoiding the guessing game if a change is > >>> awaiting review). > >>> > >>> Please let me know what you think about this approach. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Till > >> > >
