Anyway, your suggestion requires to have self-disciplined committers that will be keeping track of the tickets they promised to review.
I’m ready to propose a guideline here but the committers have to be committed to that. Otherwise, I’ll just waste my time. — Denis > On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:41 AM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Periodic punches can frustrate committers, and also it's unpleasant for > contributors. Most IP->PA transitions are commented with something like > "John Doe, this awesome feature is ready and needs your review." Maybe it's > better to adopt following rule of thumb? If the change is clean and > straightforward it should be reviewed is a day, otherwise committer puts a > comment in Jira issue about planned review time. > > Is this acceptable? > > 2018-02-07 0:14 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org > <mailto:dma...@apache.org>>: > >> I guess it’s all about discipline. >> >> Committers need to walk-through a list of the pull-request regularly while >> contributors have to remind of a pending pull-request periodically. So both >> parts have to be proactive. >> >> Another approach is to find a volunteer from the community who will keep >> an eye on the contributions and spread them out among committers. >> >> Not sure I like the latter approach and would rather go for the one when >> both the committers and contributors are proactive and disciplined. But >> guess what, if you want to make the contributors proactive then the >> committers have to be an example. >> >> — >> Denis >> >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey Kuznetsov.
