I wasn't aware of this history, thanks for explaining!
In most Apache projects I contributed to, the list of things that are
stated in reviewed by are implied in a committer committing the
patch. Reviewers are there to help the committer make the decision
(thats why I sometimes mention @ewencp
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com wrote:
I wasn't aware of this history, thanks for explaining!
No problem. :)
In most Apache projects I contributed to, the list of things that are
stated in reviewed by are implied in a committer committing the
patch.
Hi Gwen,
Thanks for the feedback. Comments below.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com wrote:
The jira comment is a way for the committer to say thank you to
people who were involved in the review process.
If we just want to say thank you, then why not just
Hi Parth,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
+1 on Gwen¹s suggestion.
Consider this as my thank you for all the reviews everyone has done in
past and are going to do in future. Don¹t make me say thanks on every
single commit. Introducing
I guess we see the reviewer part with different interpretations.
What are the benefits you see of formalizing who gets mentioned as reviewer?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Ismael Juma ism...@juma.me.uk wrote:
Hi Gwen,
Thanks for the feedback. Comments below.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:40
+1 on Gwen¹s suggestion.
Consider this as my thank you for all the reviews everyone has done in
past and are going to do in future. Don¹t make me say thanks on every
single commit. Introducing another process when the project has 50 PR
open pretty much all the time is not really going to help.
My two cents:
The jira comment is a way for the committer to say thank you to
people who were involved in the review process. It doesn't have any
formal implications - the responsibility for committing good code is
on the committer (thats the whole point). It doesn't even have
informal
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com wrote:
I guess we see the reviewer part with different interpretations.
Yes. As you know, Git was created for and initially used by the Linux
Kernel. As such they were very influential in conventions, terminology and
best
Hi all,
As a general rule, we credit reviewers in the commit message. This is good.
However, it is not clear to me if there are guidelines on who should be
included as a reviewer (please correct me if I am wrong). I can think of a
few options:
1. Anyone that commented on the patch (in the
