I try to follow the second option.
In general, when multiple reviewers are looking at the code, sometimes
addressing review comments might open up other avenues of
discussion/optimization/design discussions : atleast in core, I have seen
this happen often.
A day or so delay is worth the increased
I see some voices that it's not sufficient to understand the topic. Let me
elaborate this a bit more.
1. There're multiple reviewers reviewing the PR. (Say, A, B, C, D)
2. A and B leaves review comments on the PR, but no one makes the explicit
indication that these review comments are the final
Oh sorry that was gone with flame (please just consider it as my fault) and
I just removed all comments.
Btw, when I always initiate discussions, I really do love to start
discussion "without" specific instances which tend to go blaming each
other. I understand it's not easy to discuss without
I am sure you are referring to some specific instances but I have not
followed enough to know what they are. Can you point them out? I think that
is most productive for everyone to understand.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:16 PM Jungtaek Lim
wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I know this is a super sensitive
Hi devs,
I know this is a super sensitive topic and at a risk of flame, but just
like to try this. My apologies first.
Assuming we all know about the ASF policy about code commit and I don't see
Spark project has any explicit BYLAWS, it's technically possible to do
anything for committers to do
