Subject: Commit / Code Review Policy


Thank you for putting this up, David. While I see Rob’s points, I agree
with the proposal in general, and as you and Jan said, this is not too far
from what happens today, at least in Lucene-world.

> Then change the document's name to be Recommendation instead of Policy!

Maybe guidelines? The doc itself says so, so maybe the name should reflect
the intention.

> there is no "silence is consensus"

Good point, maybe we should include something about this too. While
hopefully this doesn’t happen much, it doesn’t make sense to stall work for
weeks after putting up a final patch. Again, I think the doc’s intention is
to be a guideline, but if there are exceptions, so be it.

> People are always going to make mistakes. These mistakes will sometimes
slip past reviewers, too. No matter how much process and time you throw at
it.

Not perfect, true, but in my experience a lot is caught in reviews.

> Please don't add unnecessary things to this document like "Linear git
history" which have nothing to do with code reviews. Its already
controversial as its trying to invent its own form of "RTC", you aren't
helping your cause.

Makes sense, maybe we can address that later.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:00 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > For example, I opened some patches to improve solr's security because
> its currently an RCE-fest. I'm gonna wait a couple days, if nobody says
> anything about these patches I opened for Solr, I'm gonna fucking commit
> them: someone needs to address this stuff. Why should I wait weeks/months
> for some explicit review? There is repeated RCE happening, how the hell
> could I make anything worse?
>
> +1 Robert, totally agree. RCE etc should be absolutely top priority.
> Thanks a ton for tackling this. Breaking functionality (not deliberately of
> course) is better than having RCEs in a release. IOW, it can't get worse.
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec, 2019, 3:03 PM Robert Muir, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:49 AM Jan Høydahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the distanse is not necessarily as large as it seems. Nobody
>>> wants to get rid of lazy consensus, but rather put down in writing when we
>>> recommend to wait for explicit review.
>>>
>>
>> Then change the document's name to be Recommendation instead of Policy!
>>
>