Sounds OK to me but I have to admit that so far I don't have much skin in this game.
Is there an easy way to make this aging automatic? Also, are ACR's either accepted as-is or rejected? Do we need a "hold" status for things neither approved nor rejected but under discussion? Maybe that's already taken care of? 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: [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 9:40 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you think about the following rule? > > "An ACR which does not get any comments from anyone of ACR reviewers for > two > weeks is considered to be implicitly rejected" > > For now, we can settle on two weeks period. If someone raises an issue > about > this period, let's reconsider it. > If none has an opinion against this, I'll update the wiki page for ACR > review > process. > > 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 2:10 PM > > To: Yoonsoo Kim > > Cc: Mats Wichmann; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > > > Implied rejection seems right then, if combined with a reasonable age > gate > > (what would be reasonable?) > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: [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 9:00 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > 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
