I would be happy to review all of the ECO codebase and examples to verify
that the package change has not caused any issues.
-Josh
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> That’s up to the project to decide. ;)
>
> Mentors are here to help you make sure what
That’s up to the project to decide. ;)
Mentors are here to help you make sure what you decide upon is consistent with
the Apache Way.
-Taylor
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Karthik Ramasamy wrote:
>
> Thanks Dave and Taylor for the advice. Owners is not probably what I
Thanks Dave and Taylor for the advice. Owners is not probably what I meant.
Instead, I could call them Reviewers - for this PR.
Long term since there are so many different modules and each committer
develop different area of expertise, what is the recommended
way to review the code and merge them
As a mentor, I would recommend you avoid any concept of “ownership” like the
plague. It implies a project hierarchy that ASF projects do not have.
In ASF projects committer bits are boolean. Bob’s committer bit is no different
from Alice’s. Their project expertise may lie in different areas of
Hi Karthik,
If the purpose of “owners” is to make this change that is fine. Otherwise
having official owners of code is not really the Apache Way. Identifying people
who know a portion best is fine, but the whole project and Apache “own” the
code now for the public good.
A lot of the time
Ashvin -
It could be good to designate owners for different areas - let me come up
with a list by the end of the today tonight.
cheers
/karthik
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Ning Wang wrote:
> Make sense to me.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Ashvin A
Make sense to me.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Ashvin A wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> PR 2840 renames com.twitter package to org.apache. This change touches more
> than *2,127* files. Is there a test strategy for this change which updates
> everything? I believe just depending