Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-02-01 Thread Daniel.Sun
Hi Cédric, Please set aside some time to review the following PR: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/860 Cheers, Daniel.Sun - Apache Groovy committer Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me Twitter: @daniel_sun -- Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
Luckily according to current HR of groovy core team, it's hard to archive a big change which need more than 72 hours to review... - Apache Groovy committer Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me Twitter: @daniel_sun -- Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Cédric Champeau
I agree that no "big change" should be merged without review. 72h may sound a lot, but it's not. Le dim. 27 janv. 2019 à 22:01, Daniel.Sun a écrit : > I agree with you on most of your opinions, but some of them are a bit ideal > for an open source project such as Apache Groovy IMHO. I feel

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
I agree with you on most of your opinions, but some of them are a bit ideal for an open source project such as Apache Groovy IMHO. I feel that it is really hard to please all... P.S. One of my big projects has already used groovy 3.0.0-alpha-4, so far so good. Cheers, Daniel.Sun - Apache

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
I don't believe there is such a thing as "lazy consensus". IMO nobody should be merging their own pull requests. And 72 hours is not enough time for feedback, especially for a major change. It is quite easy for someone to be away from work email for 72 hours with just 1 day vacation/sick

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-27 Thread Daniel.Sun
> Yes, it is always wise to notify the mailing list about upcoming major changes. While not every change will bring about discussion, in those cases where there is discussion, it can reduce the need to have to rework PRs. So it is often both courteous and efficient at the same time. Agreed.

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-26 Thread Paul King
Yes, it is always wise to notify the mailing list about upcoming major changes. While not every change will bring about discussion, in those cases where there is discussion, it can reduce the need to have to rework PRs. So it is often both courteous and efficient at the same time. On Sun, Jan 27,

Re: About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-26 Thread Remko Popma
No objection from me, assuming that major changes are brought up on the mailing list first. Remko > On Jan 27, 2019, at 3:09, Daniel.Sun wrote: > > Hi all, > > In order to make all major changes reviewed, I create PRs for each > major change. And the PRs will be merged in 72 hours by

About the lazy consensus on Pull Requests

2019-01-26 Thread Daniel.Sun
Hi all, In order to make all major changes reviewed, I create PRs for each major change. And the PRs will be merged in 72 hours by default if no one rejects the PRs. So I am not going to add any note like "merged in 72 hours if no one rejects" for each JIRA ticket and PR. If anyone