Like Dawid I hope we won't add strict requirements to get changes reviewed before merging but I do agree with the general sentiment that reviews are helpful and improve code quality. I really appreciate getting feedback on patches that I upload, including negative feedback and I don't mind being pinged on issues if anyone thinks I might have valuable feedback to give.
I didn't know Solr had a CTR policy. I understand CTR and RTC have pros and cons but since there seems to be agreement that we want more changes to be reviewed I think RTC is better at encouraging a review culture: as a reviewer it's easier to recommend that the change should be done in a totally different way if that is what you think, and you also feel more useful since someone considered that the change needs your pair of eyes before being merged. Le mer. 28 févr. 2018 à 21:07, Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > >> >> I notice in ZK issues that projects associated with Hadoop have an >> *automatic* machine-generated QA check whenever a patch is submitted on >> those projects. This obviously is not the same as a real review by a >> person, but the info it outputs seems useful. >> >> >> > This is what SOLR-10912 intends to achieve. > >
