+1 kerr <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi., 29. März 2023, 18:54:
> +1 > 何品 > > > li guobin <[email protected]> 于2023年3月29日周三 17:01写道： > > > +1 > > ________________________________ > > 发件人: Greg Methvin <[email protected]> > > 发送时间: 2023年3月28日 17:15 > > 收件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > 主题: Re: Enable mandatory single positive review for pull requests in > Pekko > > projects > > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:47 Sam Byng <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Matthew Benedict de Detrich <[email protected] > .INVALID> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:08 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Enable mandatory single positive review for > > pull > > > requests in Pekko projects > > > > > > > > > I think we've been working that way informally, but it makes sense > to > > > > implement a GH check. I'm assuming that the proposal is that the > > > approval needs to come from another project committer? > > > > > > > > While like the most of us I am a fan of patting myself on the back I > > > would say that counting self reviews would make this check largely > > > pointless (so yes, the idea is you need a positive > review from > someone > > > else). > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:10 PM Sean Glover <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I think we've been working that way informally, but it makes sense to > > > > implement a GH check. I'm assuming that the proposal is that the > > > > approval needs to come from another project committer? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:09 AM Nicolas Vollmar <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 there should be one review required > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 14:52, Claude Warren, Jr > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 I didn't realize we were not working this way. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 7:10 PM Matthew Benedict de Detrich > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of cases in the past where PR's were merged > > > > > > > accidentally without having an actual positive review. How do > > > > > > > people > > > > > feel > > > > > > > about preventing PR's from being merged unless they have at > > > > > > > least one positive review (with no changes requested)? Note > that > > > > > > > I am > > > > > specifically > > > > > > > only asking for a positive review and not other options (such > as > > > > always > > > > > > > requiring a branch to be updated with main) since due to the > > > > > > > volume > > > > of > > > > > > pull > > > > > > > requests we have now this can become quite counter productive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally as a minimum bar I find this quite acceptable, we > can > > > > always > > > > > > > increase it/add more checks later down the road as the process > > > > > progresses > > > > > > > (i.e. there is an argument for having Pekko core project have 2 > > > > > positive > > > > > > > reviews rather than one due to how critical it is). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sam Byng > > > Software Engineer > > > Azure For Operators > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
