@andrewgaul Of course stewardship includes pushing back where needed. But I don't think it's healthy to push back simply because we want the contributor to fix more things, especially minor things, which is the case here. @nacx Maybe a unilateral merge *is* appropriate where the original review comments are minor tedium and the PR is perfectly good and useful and the contributor is clearly busy.
A review like this puts the contributor in a position where he or she either needs to do a bit more work and context switching (which I can understand here if it is difficult to justify the time) or to reply explicitly "That just isn't worth it to me" (which can be a hard thing to say). Given those options I can see why a contributor just backs away -- the PR doesn't get merged and no one wins. The depth of the reviews in the community is excellent. But that can work against us... I think velocity (and happiness in participation) would go up if we were more explicit that minor things won't block a merge and if they are ignored we'll merge anyway. There are definitely better things we all could do than bike shed over a `toString`. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/907#issuecomment-193943508
