> On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> I think we agreed on most of the points. We also agreed that points 4 & 5
> should be a best effort and not "enforced”.
4 and 5 are really just needed when any “significant change” are part of the
discussion. Things like whitespace
Hi guys,
I think we agreed on most of the points. We also agreed that points 4 &
5 should be a best effort and not "enforced".
If there's no objection, I will create the review mailing list and
update the github integration configuration.
Thanks all for your comments and feebacks !
Regards
Thanks for the update Frances.
I will ping my infra contact to move forward quickly.
Regards
JB
On 10/10/2016 07:27 PM, Frances Perry wrote:
Related to #3-5: Also, as we discussed earlier [1], there will be an
additional level of tracking in jira for deeper proposal-style
conversations to help
Related to #3-5: Also, as we discussed earlier [1], there will be an
additional level of tracking in jira for deeper proposal-style
conversations to help us keep track of which ones are still under
discussion on the dev@ list (which, as usual, remains the source of truth).
The details are still in
Hi Max and the others,
For 5, it was more the idea to have a agreement on a proposal. 2 weeks
without any feedback (it's not two weeks "static") is just an idea. The
discussion can be extended for as long as we want if there are still
some discussions.
Agree on 4, it's just a best effort. Th
Hi JB!
> 1. We create a new mailing list: rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org.
> 2. We configure github integration to send all pull request comments on
> review mailing list. It would allow to track and simplify the way to read the
> comments and to keep up to date.
I already have it organized th
+1 except [4] for me, too. [4] may be replaced with linking DISCUSSION mail
thread archive to JIRA.
Yes it doesn't update news on discussion to JIRA and/or Github, but at
least someone needed to see can find out manually.
Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2016년 10월 7일 (금) 오전 11:00, Satish Duggan
+1 for proposal except for [4]. Agree with Raghu on [4] as it may be
burdensome to update with summaries and folks may start replying comments
on those summaries etc and conclusions are updated on respective design
docs. We may want to start without [4].
Thanks,
Satish.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:
+1 for rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org. Open lists are critically
important.
My comment earlier was mainly about (4). Sorry about the not being clear.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Lukasz Cwik
wrote:
> +1 for supporting different working styles.
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Kenneth
+1 for supporting different working styles.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Kenneth Knowles
wrote:
> +1 to rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org if it is turnkey for infra to set
> up, aka points 1 and 2.
>
> Even though I would not personally read it via email, getting the
> information in yet anot
+1 to rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org if it is turnkey for infra to set
up, aka points 1 and 2.
Even though I would not personally read it via email, getting the
information in yet another format and infrastructure (and stewardship) is
valuable for search, archival, and supporting diverse work st
JB,
Are there any examples of similar process for another Apache project?
Providing regular updates of discussion happening another open list seems
burdensome, especially for new contributors who come to project with large
proposals.
If a feature is large enough, may be a there needs to be a desi
12 matches
Mail list logo
