Well, no problem, this project is freedom, allowing Contributors to maintain rapid iteration;
If there is a discussion among developers, discuss it directly on PR, but if there is a scenario where it is impossible to reach a real consensus or there are disagreements, then initiate a mail vote; Otherwise, ordinary PRs and PCIPs can be submitted and merged directly through PR, without the need for mail voting or notification. What do you think? If possible, let's initiate a vote on this point of view On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 9:47 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > My concern is about having a formal process that requires an approval > vote. I consider that as slowing or blocking ideas. To me the whole reason > to have the contributor repository is to unblock development of new ideas. > > > On Oct 17, 2024, at 6:04 PM, lushiji(apache) <lush...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Then I will initiate a formal PCIP submission process so that everyone > can > > know or give feedback. > > Do you think it is okay? Dave > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:31 AM xiangying meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> IMO，It is necessary to make it known for important features. > >> As for PCIP, a clear PCIP can help later generations better understand > >> and maintain this feature. It can also help users better learn to use > >> this feature without having to look through the code. > >> But this does not mean that a vote is needed. I wonder if it can be > >> carried out after being known for a period of time and there is no > >> objection? > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:20 AM lushiji(apache) <lush...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> The current PCIP is an open discussion. If I am wrong, please correct > me. > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Your suggestion is very good. Pulsar-java-contrib is an open > repository. > >>> I am not sure about the necessity of PCIP. The original idea of > building > >>> this PCIP is to make some larger Improvement Proposals known to the > >> Pulsar > >>> community to prevent the project from being deformed. > >>> > >>> If the PCIP process is simplified to just make developers of the Pulsar > >>> community known, do you think it is necessary? > >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 1:24 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is in no way a comment about the proposed work. In fact that work > >>>> should proceed. > >>>> > >>>> This is about what looks like extraneous process. I thought that the > >>>> purpose of this new repository was to streamline and ease the > >> development > >>>> of new ideas and contributions. Adding a new PCIP process seems to be > >>>> contrary to this purpose. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Dave > >>>> > >>>>> On Oct 12, 2024, at 5:24 AM, Denovo1998 (via GitHub) <g...@apache.org > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Denovo1998 commented on code in PR #8: > >>>>> URL: > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-java-contrib/pull/8#discussion_r1797693657 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ########## > >>>>> pcip/TEMPLATE.md: > >>>>> ########## > >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ > >>>>> +<!-- > >>>>> > >>>>> Review Comment: > >>>>> Added in https://github.com/apache/pulsar-java-contrib/pull/9. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. > >>>>> To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the > >>>>> URL above to go to the specific comment. > >>>>> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: > >>>>> us...@infra.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
