More eyes are of course always welcome. That said, there haven’t been many volunteers so far, despite its development going on for many months now, in the open, in official ASF repos. I suspect mainly because it’s pretty hard and not exactly very fun (speaking from experience).
> If it happens / if anyone is interested. But if nobody expresses any concerns > or asks for time to look into something specific, then I agree that the > reviews that have already happened in the feature branch are sufficient and > there isn't a need for a new full blown review. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Truth is, next major release is pretty far away. This is not an attempt to fast-track a major change right before a release vote. Anything can be reverted, anything can be modified, and many things will be before now and then - there is a pretty long list of work remaining to be done. The CEP was voted on, development is progressing along the lines of the CEP, and any extra review on top of the mandated (and objectively already cleared) bar can be performed on trunk commits just as easily after the merge. Many months ahead for any volunteers to take a look at the work already done and the work yet to come and raise any issues. The sooner it’s in trunk, the more eyes it will draw, IMO, if you are right about most contributors not having paid attention to a feature branch. > On 20 Jan 2023, at 15:34, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@datastax.com> wrote: > > I might be completely off, but I think what others are referring to here is > that 2 committers is the minimum bar, and for any commit there could be other > contributors wishing to review some part or even in full what is being > merged, and we would always allow for that, within reasonable time limits. > > Since most contributors would not have paid attention to a feature branch, > the result is that that additional review happens now. If it happens / if > anyone is interested. But if nobody expresses any concerns or asks for time > to look into something specific, then I agree that the reviews that have > already happened in the feature branch are sufficient and there isn't a need > for a new full blown review. > > As far as I can tell, this email thread is exactly that process and I imagine > was at least one of the reasons to send this heads up email? > > henrik > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 5:23 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com > <mailto:alek...@apple.com>> wrote: >> What Benedict says is that the commits into cassandra/cep-15-accord and >> cassandra-accord/trunk branch have all been vetted by at least two >> committers already. Each authored by a Cassandra committer and then reviewed >> by a Cassandra committer. That *is* our bar for merging into Cassandra trunk. >> >>> On 20 Jan 2023, at 12:31, Mick Semb Wever <m...@datastax.com >>> <mailto:m...@datastax.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> These tickets have all met the standard integration requirements, so I’m >>>> just unclear what “higher pre-commit gateway” you are referring to. >>> >>> >>> A merge into trunk deserves extra eyeballs than a merge into a feature >>> branch. >>> >>> We can refer to this as a "higher pre-commit gateway" or a "second pass". >>> Either way I believe it is a good thing. >> > > > -- > > Henrik Ingo > c. +358 40 569 7354 > w. www.datastax.com <http://www.datastax.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/datastax> <https://twitter.com/datastax> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/datastax/> <https://github.com/datastax/>
