Vladimir, right, see my reply to Sergi above.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> As I understand nobody is forced to use this tool, right?
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:57PM, Dmitriy Setra
Igniters,
As I understand nobody is forced to use this tool, right?
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:57PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue,
> > no?
>
> Not really. We ar
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:57PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue,
> no?
Not really. We are talking about a use of a tool to improve the review
process. Dictating a tool would be a step to a wrong direction. It's like
imposing the
Cos, I also thought this falls under a procedural vote when starting this.
6 days have passed, vote is closed.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Igor Rudyak wrote:
> +1
>
> On Nov 16, 2016 9:15 AM, "Denis Magda" wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel T
/VOTE-Use-Upsource-for-Code-Review-td12272.html
I will sort out the open-source licensing, update the documentation with
instructions [1], and notify the dev list after that.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
Pavel
+1
On Nov 16, 2016 9:15 AM, "Denis Magda" wrote:
> +1
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
> >
> > Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review
> > tool.
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ]
Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue,
no?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> What are we voting for this?
>
> Fortunately, Apache isn't about democracy. [1]
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Cos
>
> On Wed, No
What are we voting for this?
Fortunately, Apache isn't about democracy. [1]
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Cos
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:08PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code
+1
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> > > I
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> +1
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
> >
> > Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review
> > tool.
> >
> > [ ]
+1
—
Denis
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>
> Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review
> tool.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> This vote will go
+1
Ok, this makes sense.
Sergi
2016-11-16 14:33 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> +1
>
> I think we should allow this tool, unless it proves counter productive. If
> it does, then we will drop it.
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
> > Sergi,
> >
> > I don't think we
+1
I think we should allow this tool, unless it proves counter productive. If
it does, then we will drop it.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> Sergi,
>
> I don't think we should enforce it.
> "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki.
>
> It
+1
Way to go!
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Andrey Gura wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
> > Sergi,
> >
> > I don't think we should enforce it.
> > "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki.
> >
> > It is up to contr
+1
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> Sergi,
>
> I don't think we should enforce it.
> "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki.
>
> It is up to contributor and reviewer to use it.
> For example, if the changes are small/trivial, creating a r
Sergi,
I don't think we should enforce it.
"Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki.
It is up to contributor and reviewer to use it.
For example, if the changes are small/trivial, creating a review in
Upsource is not necessary.
If the changes are complex and contribu
Pavel,
I'm not sure I understand the term "official code review tool", can you
please elaborate it? We will enforce everyone to register in Upsource and
use it or what?
Sergi
2016-11-16 13:22 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> Proper link to the discussion:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n
Proper link to the discussion:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
Code-Review-Tool-Proposal-Upsource-td12195.html
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
> > Following the discussion on Upso
+1
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
> I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review
> tool.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> This vote will go on for 5 da
Following the discussion on Upsource [1],
I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review
tool.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
This vote will go on for 5 days.
[1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
com/Code-Review-T
20 matches
Mail list logo
