> > know I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but it’s not respectful to be > biased and act like an expert during the reviews, while you’ve contributed > just for documentation PRs. When I talk about experience, I’m talking about > reviewers who don’t contribute to the project, they ask questions to get to > know Pulsar’s internals during the PIP, and then they give judgment based > on their limited understanding, which is rude.
This is a very negative and corrosive way of looking at things. Anyone - anyone - who takes the time and effort to review a change or PIP is helping you. Here you are, complaining about your PIPs and PRs not getting support, and at the same time belittling someone who does take the time to help you in moving things forward. Asking questions, understanding the changes , seeking explanations .. is all part of the process. One hopes that a reviewer does poke some holes and finds weaknesses. So that the end result is better than the original, because of the process, not just the person. By no means is that process 'rude'. I can even cite a few examples from recent times from different users > (PIP-337, PIP-338, PIP-332, PIP-310, etc) to illustrate how some > improvements are simply ignored This is strange, as all of those PIPs have comments and questions. Discussions and voting need to be championed by the proposer. People have multiple claims on their time. There is no uber person dictating what get's attention or who should do what. You need to canvass people and push for your changes all the way through. There are many examples > (PIP-321) where it was developed by SN contributors, and while there is no > consensus, they will still be a part of the system. As for PIP-321 getting in without a consensus, I was one who had concerns with it (and still think poorly of it), but I don't think it was decided in violation to the rules. On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:14 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:38 AM Yunze Xu <x...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Regarding PIP-332 and PIP 310, similar to PIP-337, there is no > > discussion mail in the dev mail list. David left a comment [1] in > > > > There is for 310 - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/13ncst2nc311vxok1s75thl2gtnk7w1t > > > Regards > -- > Girish Sharma >
