Thanks for your effort, Stamatis.
I totally agree that breaking and other significant changes should be
reviewed and receive +1 before committing. Regarding the minimum
wait time to commit, I think 72 hours might be too long. Maybe 24-48
hours is enough.
Best,
Chunwei
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at
Hi,
I see that Calcite is a core and mission critical component for many
applications and libraries, in many core libraries they follow
strictly Review-Than-Commit and this rule is very useful.
There is no hurry in committing a fix or a new feature, we are a great
opensource project, without time
Thanks for raising the discussion Stamatis! I agree that breaking and
other significant changes should be reviewed before committing. I'm
hesitant about saying that *all* issues should be open for 72h before
committing. Sometimes I'll come up with a small bug fix or enhancement
that I'd just like
Hi all,
In the recent discussion about the quality of the commit messages [1] it
was brought up the question of having a specific process for code reviews.
I do believe that this is an important subject so I decided to start a
separate thread around this topic.
Some people lean towards a commit
