Side note: I think using discussion to achieve consensus on topics like this
tends to work better than [VOTE] threads. If we fail to reach a consensus we
can resort to a vote thread, or for reasons spelled out in [1].
IMHO,
Anthony
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On May
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating PRs (Im
wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
De: Darrel Schneider
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
+1 to Donal's comments
From: Donal Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents
people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state -
To be clear. I’m absolutely in favor of using draft mode as an initial
indicator of the state of a PR.
What I’m not in favor of is requiring the PR to be switched back and forth.
Certainly, if any individual developer wants to do that, of course that’s their
prerogative.
--Jens.
From: Mark
I have a thought. What if draft mode was the default state for the PR button
and you had to select normal mode for the PR button?
Anyway, just my take.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/6/21, 10:45 AM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
I agree, I like the draft mode switch. The hesitations that I have are
I agree, I like the draft mode switch. The hesitations that I have are
mentioned by Jens in that you can have failures that are unrelated. Especially
DUnits at this point. Perhaps for required tests following the draft mode
approach is better. I have had many cases where I see PRs that
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the
PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any
assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM,
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For myself
I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’ –
related, I
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is coming
before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to look at
your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they wish, but if
they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR
Comments inline…
Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be reviewed.
This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR checks are
not passing.
How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be reviewing?
Different reviewers may be
12 matches
Mail list logo
