Unless someone objects, let's hold off on this for the time being. It seems like there are some mixed feelings and I'm not sure we want to add more process to solve a problem that may not even exist. We can always pick this discussion back up in the future if we identify a clear need.
Thanks, Lenni On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Prasad Mujumdar <[email protected]> wrote: > +0 > > I tend to agree with Patrick. Cool off period would add extra work for > committers. One can have additional feedback on a patch anytime after it's > proposed or committed. The discussion can continue on reviewboard or jira, > and can have a followup ticket to track the feedback. > > thanks > Prasad > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Usually what I see is that patches don't get reviewed/committed in a > timely > > fashion. This tends to happen when the community is growing, you're > trying > > to attract committers as one of the main goals - you have very few > > committers to handle the reviews. > > > > Patrick > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Patrick, > > > It shouldn't have a significant impact on any new contributers since > the > > > reviews of their patches would could start as soon as the patch is > > posted. > > > I'm interested in your experience in this area - the only other > project I > > > have worked on with a cool-off period is Hive, and a cool-off does not > > seem > > > to have had a negative impact on community growth. Do you know how > other > > > projects address the problem of giving larger portion of the community > a > > > chance to review a chance prior to commit? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Lenni > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Ugh. I personally dislike the idea of any cool-off. It's hard enough > > for > > > > projects to get folks to review changes, introducing some artificial > > > > "freeze" is not going to be a pain and turn people off. > > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Xuefu Zhang <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think 24h is usually enough. It gets complicated when we start > > > > > considering weekends, holidays (different countries, regions), etc. > > > > Longer > > > > > waiting period is at the discretion of the one who's going to make > > the > > > > > commit. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Ma, Junjie <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 cool off 48 hrs because of the weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Colin Ma(Ma Jun Jie) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Lenni Kuff [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:25 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Cool off period for commits? > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently Sentry has not policy in place for a cool off period > for > > > > > commits > > > > > > (time after patch has gotten +1'ed that the change can be > > committed). > > > > > This > > > > > > limits the opportunity other people in the community can review a > > > > change > > > > > > prior to it going in. This is particularly important since we > have > > > > > > committers across many different time zones > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you all think about adding a cool-off period for all > > commits > > > > > after > > > > > > a patch has gotten a +1? The Hive project uses 24 hours, so we > > could > > > go > > > > > > with that. Could also use something longer like 48 or 72 hours. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Lenni > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
