Re: Commits without reviews

To wrap up this discussion: - we WILL NOT allow 'TBR' reviews of code - we WILL allow trivial commits to non-code parts of the repo without a review If anyone disagrees, or feels this does not capture the discussion, please speak up! On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Maxim Khutornenko

Re: Commits without reviews

Sorry for the jargon - "to be reviewed". It's a commit that is reviewed offline, with the expectation that the committer will address any comments in a follow-up patch. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > I am sorry, but what is TBR? > > - Henry > >

Re: Commits without reviews

+1 -Jake On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Bill Farner wrote: > All, > > Over the past few days, i have made several commits to the repository > without code review. Our convention has historically been to perform a > code review for any change, however small. Please see

Re: Commits without reviews

The original proposal Bill made was "...for changes unrelated to build or test of the main project (e.g. scheduler, executor, client, packaging)..." +1 on either skipping the RB or TBR for any changes falling into above category. -1 for sidestepping the official review process for anything else.

Re: Commits without reviews

I'm +1 to skipping reviews for those portions of the codebase that are hard to test except via trail and error. I'm -0 to using TBR in an OSS project. In my mind TBR is for emregencies of which there should be none in an OSS infra project; these should only be in the leaves that use the OSS

Re: Commits without reviews

I’m -1 to TBR in most cases. Exceptions may be where there is clear community consensus, and a design document that has been discussed. > On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:48 PM, Bill Farner wrote: > > Sorry for the jargon - "to be reviewed". It's a commit that is reviewed > offline,

Re: Commits without reviews

Yu <yujie@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Flying by. Mesos allows small commits without reviews and it works well in > practice. > > - Jie > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > All, > > > > Ov

Re: Commits without reviews

It could be, I just think it's easier to comment on a reviewboard than it is a commits@ email. On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bill Farner wrote: > Can that be handled by subscribing to commits@? > > On Thursday, December 24, 2015, Joshua Cohen wrote: >

Re: Commits without reviews

This is where i look towards allowing committers to exercise judgement. IMHO for commits like the ones above, a review is extra noise for everyone. I suppose my position is that i favor simplifying commits over simplifying comments. On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Joshua Cohen

Re: Commits without reviews

I'm generally ok with this. Just curious: what do you think about maybe posting a review and then committing it right away in these cases though? A bit noisy on the reviews@ list, but at least it'd give people a chance to peruse/comment as they see fit (with the assumption that any comments would