I'm +1 on the idea of switching to lazy consensus after a single binding plus one and a week for objection. TinkerPop has so many different modules / areas and committers have different expertise that is hard to get 3 votes on something.
Other projects have the concept of main "reviewer" and this would be very similar, a committer that was responsible for reviewing the code and to check that everything is in order. El mar., 10 jul. 2018 a las 13:01, Stephen Mallette (<spmalle...@gmail.com>) escribió: > I believe that the review process is not working so well anymore. I'm not > sure if committers/PMC members have just not had time to do reviews or have > not felt comfortable doing them, but for the most part they aren't getting > done and PRs are languishing. Personally, I like our process, but if it > takes 3+ weeks to deal with a PR like this: > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/879/files > > where all we did was remove deprecated methods, I don't think we're ever > going to get anything else through. As it stands, I personally chase votes > in the background to get PRs to merge.....and, I don't want to do that > anymore. > > I'll remind committers (and those interested in becoming committers) that a > "review" in our context doesn't have to be a full on review of code where > you hold this deep understanding of everything that is going on. That is > awesome when that happens, but it is perfectly fine to review/VOTE in the > following manner (as examples): > > + VOTE +1 - ran docker integration tests and everything passes > + VOTE +1 - reviewed the code in detail - solid pull request > + VOTE +1 - agree with the principle of this pull request but don't fully > understand the code > + VOTE +1 - read through the updated documentation and understand why this > is important, nice > > So basically, you can VOTE and just explain your position for why you voted > (or not explain). I would like to keep this process, however, if we can't > raise the VOTEs for whatever reason, then I'd like to suggest a change. > > I'd suggest that we go to a slightly looser version of review-then-commit, > where we require the 3 binding +1 VOTEs as we have been doing OR we > require a single binding +1 and 1 week for objection at which point we have > a form of lazy consensus. > > Honestly, I'd like to see some discussion on this from committers/PMC > members and not go with the standard form of lazy consensus that we > typically end up with. However, if no one truly has anything to say, > consider the 72 hours started now. >
