Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments. Please, find my inline comments.
BR, --- Yoonsoo Kim(ys71.kim AT samsung.com) Principal SW Engineer/Software Architect Mobile R&D Office Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hanchett, Paul [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:01 PM > To: Yoonsoo Kim > Cc: Mats Wichmann; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > It would be better for an unreviewed item to be escalated for consideration by > another reviewer-- > Who will escalate an unreviewed item to whom? The practical thing is that reviewers are very unlikely to fail to review ACRs according to my experiences. So, if you think "implied consent" rule is problematic, then I'd like to propose following "implied rejection" rule. The escalation rule may impose another complexity to the process. One more thing I want to tell you is that discussion on feature itself and design alternatives will be discussed on JIRA and the dev mailing list. An ACR is a kind of a sub-item of a predefined work, not creating a new work. > Do you really want the failure of a reviewer to complete their task to result in > unreviewed items being added to the work? > > Seems wrong to me... > > Paul > > > > Paul Hanchett > ------------------- > Infotainment Engineer > MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover > One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor, Portland, > Oregon, 97204 > > Email:쟰[email protected] > ------------------- > > Business Details: > Jaguar Land Rover Limited > Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF > Registered in England No: 1672070 > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Mats Wichmann > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:45 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > > > On 11/05/2013 11:38 PM, Yoonsoo Kim wrote: > > > This is a reminder notice for ACR review process. > > > > > > Could anyone of you, who want to participate in API review > > > or are expected to add/change/remove APIs, subscribe to > > > [email protected]? > > > > I'm normally in the camp of being very cautious changing APIs, and the > > process sounds attuned to this, which is okay. 쟔till, there's a slight > > concern here: > > > > >> 2. Designated ACR reviewers give comments on the ACR on the mailing > list > > >> during review. > > >> If they agree on the ACR, add "Reviewed-by: reviewer name <reviewer's > e- > > >> mail>" before > > >> ACR body. > > >> > > >> 3. If the submitter gets "Reviewed-by" tag from all designated ACR > > >> reviewers, he(or she) can upload it to "Tizen APIs" JIRA > > > > we have the possibility of the process stalling if some designated > > reviewers don't actually get to the review. 쟕here's no description here > > of "reasonable time for review" and "implied consent" (or "implied > > rejection" if we want to be more cautious), so things can move forward. > > 쟄as this been considered? > > > Mats, you have a point. > > I didn't consider the possibility but I'd like to follow "implied consent" > rule > in case of no response for "reasonable time" because it's the due diligence > of designated reviewers to review submitted ACRs. > > > -- mats > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
