> -----Original Message----- > From: Hanchett, Paul [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:05 AM > To: Yoonsoo Kim > Cc: Mats Wichmann; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > Sounds OK to me but I have to admit that so far I don't have much skin in > this > game.
No problem. My experiences with this process have been gained from Samsung internal development. I actually don't know what will happen with the public development but we can discuss situations on this list and make a consensus on how to deal with them whenever unexpected event happens. So, I don't think the initial process is perfect. > 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? Typically each reviewer will give various comments on each ACR. I expect that most ACRs(maybe 99%?) be modified during review. If she is satisfied with the ACR, she will give "Reviewed-by" tag. I don't think we need "hold" status because each ACR is actually being "hold" and can't go to the next step during review. As far as automatic aging concerned, I expect that implied rejection case will be very rare and it's not too late to deal with the case of too many implicitly rejected ACRs when it really happens. > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
