GitHub user chenlica added a comment to the discussion: Conventions and practices regarding Code Review on PRs, and subsequent approval
This is an important topic, and there were several previous discussions (both online and in person) about it. As a new community, we need to gradually identify a good practice for us to follow. Here I share my own thoughts: - The author of each PR should do a thorough job on the quality of the PR, including testing, irrespective of whether AI tools are used or not. The burden shouldn't be passed to reviewers. - A reviewer of each PR should at least understand its high-level design of the PR. If a contributor is assigned to do the review, he/she should use this chance to get familiar with the corresponding module. - We want to educate more contributors to become knowledgeable enough to review PRs. A reviewer doesn't have to be a committer. - Given the use of AI tools to create PRs, I hope we can fast reviews with AI tools as well. I think @Yicong-Huang has an effort about using AI tools to help the review process. I hope he can chime in. - We can use releases to have stable versions for the public to use. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/texera/discussions/8431#discussioncomment-18323529 ---- This is an automatically sent email for [email protected]. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]
