I will always -1 before 1.1.0, so slow. and we are in different time zones too, too small group. If we have 10+ active commuters / reviewers, this is good, but for now, -1.
何品 laglangyue <laglan...@foxmail.com> 于2024年1月23日周二 23:16写道： > vote +1 for double approval， > > > Almost all the TLP projects I have participated in are like this > > 发自我的iPhone > > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > From: Claude Warren, Jr <claude.war...@aiven.io.INVALID> > Date: Tue,Jan 23,2024 10:21 PM > To: dev <dev@pekko.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] is it time to change the Pekko Processes? > > > > +1 on > > * PRs should have 2 approvals > > Note the wording: "should" indicates a recommendation. I think the strong > recommendation should be 2 approvals. This allows leeway for when there is > an emergency or when there are not enough people to review the request. On > the other hand the lack of people to review requests is indicative of > needing more reviewers/committers. Chicken and egg really, but if you have > so many pull requests that you can't keep up there is probably at least one > committer candidate hiding in the pool of submitters. > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:46 PM Matthew de Detrich > <matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > > > *collectors should be connectors > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:17 AM Matthew de Detrich < > > matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io> wrote: > > > > > I will have a stronger think about this with a full reply, but > this part > > > specifically > > > > > > > * PRs should have 2 approvals > > > > > > Is a dead no from me, there are 2 main reasons why. The first is > that we > > > although the speed of PR's have increased, the amount of > reviewers have > > not > > > and we will get into a situation where there are a lot of PR's > sitting > > > there for a long time. > > > > > > Secondly Pekko is a bit interesting in that it's not just a > single > > project > > > but rather a > > > collection of many projects and even if we do fix the amount of > reviewers > > > there are projects > > > such as collectors or management or kafka where 2 reviewers is > just too > > > much. There may > > > be an argument that Pekko core specifically should have 2 > reviewers since > > > its so core and > > > critical (and this is the rule that Akka had) but I am not sure > if ASF > > > allows that amount of > > > granularity in the review process. > > > > > > I also think the timing for this is not the best, while its true > that we > > > are getting more > > > actual feature/bug contributions then before there is still > going to be a > > > lot of admin/build tool > > > related changes where 2 reviewers is still too much. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:49 AM PJ Fanning wrote: > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> The existing Processes [1] page was designed for a time when > most of > > >> our changes were related to rebranding as Pekko and getting > builds > > >> working - generally, getting a set of v1.0.0 releases done. > > >> > > >> Now that we are getting lots of Pekko 1.1 PRs, I think the > Processes > > >> don't allow us enough time for reviewing the changes. The > community > > >> has probably grown enough that we should be able to require > more > > >> reviews. > > >> > > >> I'm going to propose: > > >> * PRs should have 2 approvals > > >> * that PRs need to be open at least 72 hours before they are > merged > > >> * if the PR is from someone with commit privileges, then > they should > > >> merge their own PRs after the 72 hours if there are enough > approvals. > > >> * If the PR is not from someone with commit privileges, then > anyone > > >> with commit privileges can merge it after the 72 hours with > enough > > >> approvals > > >> > > >> What do people think? > > >> > > >> [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PEKKO/Processes > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PEKKO/Processes>>; > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > >
