> On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> I think we agreed on most of the points. We also agreed that points 4 & 5
> should be a best effort and not "enforced”.
4 and 5 are really just needed when any “significant change” are part of the
discussion.
Hi guys,
I think we agreed on most of the points. We also agreed that points 4 &
5 should be a best effort and not "enforced".
If there's no objection, I will create the review mailing list and
update the github integration configuration.
Thanks all for your comments and feebacks !
Regards
Thanks for the update Frances.
I will ping my infra contact to move forward quickly.
Regards
JB
On 10/10/2016 07:27 PM, Frances Perry wrote:
Related to #3-5: Also, as we discussed earlier [1], there will be an
additional level of tracking in jira for deeper proposal-style
conversations to
Hi Max and the others,
For 5, it was more the idea to have a agreement on a proposal. 2 weeks
without any feedback (it's not two weeks "static") is just an idea. The
discussion can be extended for as long as we want if there are still
some discussions.
Agree on 4, it's just a best effort.
Hi JB!
> 1. We create a new mailing list: rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org.
> 2. We configure github integration to send all pull request comments on
> review mailing list. It would allow to track and simplify the way to read the
> comments and to keep up to date.
I already have it organized
JB,
Are there any examples of similar process for another Apache project?
Providing regular updates of discussion happening another open list seems
burdensome, especially for new contributors who come to project with large
proposals.
If a feature is large enough, may be a there needs to be a
Hi team,
following the discussion we had about technical discussion that should
happen on the mailing list, I would like to propose the following:
1. We create a new mailing list: rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org.
2. We configure github integration to send all pull request comments on
review