Thanks for writing this up, Andrew. I think this looks good. One challenge for me, and I assume I am not alone, is that I generally only have time at weekends to review non-trivial PRs.
I don't think there is a good solution to this problem but I will comment on the PRs that I have a particular interest in reviewing to request additional time to review. Andy. On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:39 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: > One of the items that we discussed at Wednesday's Rust sync was "what is > the criteria to merge a Rust PR". There was no conclusion at the meeting, > but there was a proposal which we would like to discuss on the mailing > list. > > *Goal*: Keep Arrow Rust PRs flowing in a timely fashion, thereby keeping > velocity high and encouraging additional contributions, while also ensuring > that quality is maintained and all contributors have a chance to weigh in > prior to merge. > > *Proposed Guideline:* (mostly a formalization of what I see happening > already): > > 1. Have 2 approvals prior to merging a PR, with at least one from a > committer > 2. Have been open for several days to allow interested parties time to > comment > 3. All comments have been addressed (including honoring requests for > additional time to review) > > Some flexibility in the rules is likely important: there are different > parts of the code at fairly different levels of maturity, and there are > some parts of the code (e.g. some parts of the parquet code base that don’t > have a large number of reviewers) > > For small changes such as fixing CI, or formatting, less time / fewer > reviews are ok, as determined by the judgement of the committer. > > Please let us know your thoughts, > Andrew >
