+1As I was already applying this.
Le samedi 02 juin 2018 à 11:24 +0300, Reuven Lax a écrit :
> +1
>
> I believe only some committers were aware of the old policy, and others were
> effectively doing this anyway.
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 2:51 AM Scott Wegner <sweg...@google.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:44 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote:
> > > +1 :) glad that we had this discussion
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 3:38 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > +1 - I hope this doesn't reduce the urgency to fix the root cause:
> > > > > not having enough committers.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:18 PM Henning Rohde <hero...@google.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:27 PM Dan Halperin <dhalp...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > +1 -- this is encoding what I previously thought the process was
> > > > > > > and what, in practice, I think was often
> > > > > > > the behavior of committers anyway.
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Yifan Zou <yifan...@google.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:10 PM Robert Bradshaw
> > > > > > > > <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:06 PM Chamikara Jayalath
> > > > > > > > > <chamik...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Cham
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Jason Kuster
> > > > > > > > > > <jasonkus...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka
> > > > > > > > > > > <goe...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > > <c...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <valen...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <al...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <k...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we seem to largely have consensus in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Reducing Committer Load for Code Reviews"[1],
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a vote to change the Beam policy on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Code Reviews to require that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) At least one committer is involved with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the code review, as either a reviewer or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as the author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) A contributor has approved the change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prior to merging any change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This changes our policy from its current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement that at least one committer *who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not the author* has approved the change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prior to merging. We believe that changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this process will improve code review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughput, reduce committer load, and engage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more of the community in the code review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1: Accept the above proposal to change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Beam code review/merge policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1: Leave the Code Review policy unchanged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7c1fde3884fbefacc252b6d4b434f9a9c2cf024f38165
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4aa3e47df18@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
