+1 on voting on the design doc. The PR approval process itself severs the consensus building process as voting.
Yufei On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 12:45 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Yes, it's what I meant: better to have discussion/consensus on design > doc or dev mailing list before PR. > > Generally speaking, the vote should be used only to confirm on one > thing (we should not vote between A and B, but more ok with A, +1 or > -1). > So, I would propose to follow the good practices and only go to vote > when needed. > > Regards > JB > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:19 PM Tyler Akidau <taki...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I agree in principle, but I do think the wording in the contribution > > guidelines that JB shared is the better approach: discuss and approve on > > the dev list *before* you have a PR ready for review. Otherwise if there > > are major objections to the directional approach, you've spent a bunch of > > time writing a PR you throw away. > > > > -Tyler > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:36 AM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Sounds good, Although I'm also fine with doing votes on design docs > prior > > > to PR's if that makes more sense. But generally having some gateway of > > > "these changes are going to be implemented" > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:11 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > on Dmitri's proposal > > > > > > > > On 14.03.25 07:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitri > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > I thought we already agreed on that. If we take a look on > > > > > https://polaris.apache.org/community/contributing-guidelines/ we > can > > > > > see in the good practices section (first bullet point): > > > > > > > > > > "Change of public interface (or more generally speaking Polaris > > > > > extension point) should be discussed and approved on the dev > mailing > > > > > list. The discussion on the dev mailing list should happen before > > > > > having a “ready-for-review” Pull Request." > > > > > > > > > > My view on it also covers REST API changes, as client-facing APIs. > > > > > > > > > > So, I agree with your proposal, I thought it was clearly stated to > the > > > > > community, but it seems not :) > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:56 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > di...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> Hi All, > > > > >> > > > > >> A lot of REST API changes have been happening lately in GitHub. > > > > >> > > > > >> Client-facing APIs changes are relatively a lot more important > than > > > > >> refactorings and other code fixes, but can easily be hidden from > view > > > in > > > > >> the multitude of GH notifications. > > > > >> > > > > >> Therefore, I propose to run votes on the dev list for REST API > changes > > > > >> after the initial review on the PR. > > > > >> > > > > >> WDYT? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Dmitri. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Stupp > > > > @snazy > > > > > > > > > > > >
