The document I wrote is hereby a commit guideline document, not policy.
I'll retitle at a later point; it'll change the link. I'll rework a bit so
that the tone doesn't sound too absolute.
Ask for a review, which as this document says is really just a LGTM
threshold of approval, not even a real code review. Given your reputation
of writing quality code, this isn't going to be an issue for you. If it's
taking multiple weeks for anyone then we have a problem to fix -- and at
present we do in Solr. Explicitly encouraging mere approvals (as the
document says) should help a little. Establishing that we want this
standard of conduct as this document says (even if not mandatory) will also
help -- "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". But I think we should do
_how_ to get reviews; it's an important subject. The document encourages
us to ask each other for reviews. Lets make this a habit. The health of
the codebase is at stake.
Rob then Thömas wrote:
Yes, the doc should somehow make reference to and condone lazy-consensus.
It's a last-resort but always an option. In Solr we need to take steps to
get the reviews so that lazy-consensus is rare. For Lucene this is rare, I
I considered this. I think it's useful to have one document/page related
to the guidelines of committing code with all that it entails. Many of the
items are short and shouldn't get too long (I think). But I totally get
your point that it's too much to discuss/debate at once. I will expressly
mark those parts as "[PENDING DISCUSSION]" so we can focus on the review
aspect now -- the most important topic.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developerhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:18 PM Anshum Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: