Hi,
No comments have been received so far. I have moved the RFC to "in development"
state and I will continue with the code implementation.
BR/
Alberto B.
De: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Enviado: sábado, 23 de mayo de 2020 0:26
Para: [email protected]
Asunto:
Hi all,
LGTM analysis: Java check failed for last six opened PRs.
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5182
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5181
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5180
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5179
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5176
https://github.com/apa
Hi there Alberto,
Thank you for the RFC.
Tbh, I don’t know if there should some guidance around the period that we
invite comments on.
I personally had a really busy week and could not get to the RFC review in the
1 week that I was given.
I would like to request that this RFC is extended by 1
I’m looking at the logs, and doing some digging.
From: Mario Kevo
Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 3:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: LGTM check failed
Hi all,
LGTM analysis: Java check failed for last six opened PRs.
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
Hi Udo,
Thanks for your message, I was not sure if I had to receive explicit +1
messages or not. Of course I prefer to have some feedback before continue so I
will extend the deadline until end of next Thursday (4th June), I hope its fine.
BR/
Alberto B.
De: Ud
Hi there Alberto,
There is no explicit requirement to receive any “+1” messages.
I think a good rule of thumb is to:
a) To provide a little more time to review any RFC. One week might be a little
short, given that we cannot assume that everyone has time to review/work on the
project in a full-t
