Subject: Commit / Code Review Policy


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.

Rob wrote:
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
even more...

Gus wrote:
_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
think.

Rob wrote:

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 Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:18 PM Anshum Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: