In the meantime the new Kanban board filter for Needs Reviewer is called
Committer Needed which made me think that this may be probably an even
better option here based on the states meanings I outlined for myself:
PATCH AVAILABLE - we have a patch; No reviewer has started working on
review - nei
Where did we land on this? Joey's statement above:
> * 4.0: Fully supported until April 2023 and high severity bugs until April
> 2024 (2 year full, 1 year bugfix)
> * 3.11: Fully supported until April 2022 and high severity bugs until
> April 2023 (1 year full, 1 year bugfix)
> * 3.0: Supported f
Hello Cassandra Project!
As we all know, Cassandra 4.0.0 went GA on July 26th. This is a huge
milestone for the project and the product of the efforts of hundreds of
people; thank you and congratulations to everyone for the hard work and
dedication to the project!
As we used to send out biweekly
So, I don’t feel strongly about this at all, I just think it will be more
confusing this way so lead to more inconsistency of usage, as it will be
unclear what this second reviewer should do if they don’t start reviewing
immediately, so some tickets will remain in “Needs Second Reviewer” when it
My only worry is that If we incorporate both things in one state this means
that people won’t be able to find immediately tickets to assign for review.
They will have to go and check whether it needs a reviewer or just the
second reviewer haven’t started review yet. That is why I suggested then to
I was proposing substituting “Needs Second Reviewer” for “Awaiting Second
Review” as this encapsulates the need for an additional reviewer _and_ the
pending status for the review beginning.
I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that once a reviewer is found that
they will move it into “In Re
Thank you all.
On Benedict’s question, my understanding is that the idea of Needs Second
Reviewer is to indicate we need to find a second reviewer. I suspect when
we find one he/she will move it to “In review” and provide status updates
in the ticket. I am open for better suggestions.
I guess “Awai
+1 to "Awaiting Second Review"
Em seg., 2 de ago. de 2021 às 11:02, bened...@apache.org <
bened...@apache.org> escreveu:
> Perhaps “Awaiting Second Review”?
>
> It looks from the flow that this is more accurate, as a second reviewer
> could have been assigned but review could not yet have gotten
Perhaps “Awaiting Second Review”?
It looks from the flow that this is more accurate, as a second reviewer could
have been assigned but review could not yet have gotten underway? It’s unclear
to me what you would do in this case – would it return to Patch Available, or
sit in Needs Second Review
+1
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:40 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> While triaging tickets last week, we realized that the new state works well
> with only one caveat. The expectation is Patch Available to be used when
> there is no reviewer available and Needs Reviewer to be used w
+1, agreed this makes its purpose more explicit.
Em seg., 2 de ago. de 2021 às 10:40, Ekaterina Dimitrova <
e.dimitr...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hi everyone,
>
> While triaging tickets last week, we realized that the new state works well
> with only one caveat. The expectation is Patch Available to
Hi everyone,
While triaging tickets last week, we realized that the new state works well
with only one caveat. The expectation is Patch Available to be used when
there is no reviewer available and Needs Reviewer to be used when we need a
second reviewer. The name Needs Reviewer might be confusing
12 matches
Mail list logo
