I like this new version. This clarifies the review, commit and CHANGES. As a beginner in this process, it helps.
I appreciate the idea to have a "risk" section where we could list and say a few words about some risky areas so that the contributor can announce they might be impacted in reviews. Le ven. 29 nov. 2019 à 16:06, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > The commit policy / guideline document is basically 95% there and I don't > want to wait longer to get input. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Commit+Policy+-+DRAFT > > If you log-in, you can comment on the document in-line as Jan has already > done. Such feedback is good for details. For more substantive or high > level feedback, this email thread probably makes more sense. > > The policy/guideline document insists on reviews but gives broad > exceptions for reviews and defines a very low bar for reviews -- basically > mere "approval" from *anyone* and that didn't necessarily look at the > code. Yet this is a higher bar than today. > > Also, I hope this is not controversial but I want the same definition of > minor/trival matters to be used for (A) when a JIRA issue is not needed > either, and (B) not bothering with a CHANGES.txt entry. I observe that > today we seemingly have a JIRA issue for *everything*, and I find that > onerous and is yet another barrier for contributors of such small matters. > For example https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13926 which just > adds javadocs. Also I think we add too many items to CHANGES.txt... lots > of people read this and it's a collective waste of our time IMO to mention > that some test was fixed. > > All feedback is very welcome! > > ~ David >
