+1 On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:40 AM Łukasz Gajowy <lukasz.gaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > 2018-06-04 9:12 GMT+02:00 Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org>: > >> +1 >> As I was already applying this. >> >> Le samedi 02 juin 2018 à 11:24 +0300, Reuven Lax a écrit : >> >> +1 >> >> I believe only some committers were aware of the old policy, and others >> were effectively doing this anyway. >> >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 2:51 AM Scott Wegner <sweg...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:44 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 :) glad that we had this discussion >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 3:38 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 - I hope this doesn't reduce the urgency to fix the root cause: not >> having enough committers. >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:18 PM Henning Rohde <hero...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:27 PM Dan Halperin <dhalp...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> +1 -- this is encoding what I previously thought the process was and >> what, in practice, I think was often the behavior of committers anyway. >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Yifan Zou <yifan...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:10 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:06 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Thanks, >> Cham >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Jason Kuster <jasonkus...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh <tg...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> As we seem to largely have consensus in "Reducing Committer Load for Code >> Reviews"[1], this is a vote to change the Beam policy on Code Reviews to >> require that >> >> (1) At least one committer is involved with the code review, as either a >> reviewer or as the author >> (2) A contributor has approved the change >> >> prior to merging any change. >> >> This changes our policy from its current requirement that at least one >> committer *who is not the author* has approved the change prior to merging. >> We believe that changing this process will improve code review throughput, >> reduce committer load, and engage more of the community in the code review >> process. >> >> Please vote: >> [ ] +1: Accept the above proposal to change the Beam code review/merge >> policy >> [ ] -1: Leave the Code Review policy unchanged >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thomas >> >> [1] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7c1fde3884fbefacc252b6d4b434f9a9c2cf024f381654aa3e47df18@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> >> >> >> >> >> >
