Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] Patches are not being reviewed

[Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Folks

This thread seems to demonstrate a much simpler approach.

Hopefully a polite winge gets everyone's attention and the problem is 
solved. No need for
bureaucratic timeouts and constitutions and ....

I think it's still worth identifying the project areas and associating 
at least a primary committer with each
It's also worth letting mdt-ocl-dev know when we're off on holiday or 
whatever.

I'll tag each of the Bugzillas as I previously indicated, and add a 
project areas section to the MDT/OCL Developer
guidelines wiki, with a table in which volunteers can add their name.

   Regards

      Ed Willink


Laurent Goubet wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> I probably am the one that's awaited to +1 on these bugs ... As I 
> mentionned before I am absolutely not familiar enough with 
> parsers/analyzers/grammars to have a really interesting opinion on 
> these. I am all for your idea of designing a reviewer for each area, 
> and I believe establishing a 'reviewing deadline' is also a good thing 
> : even on areas I am familiar with (254919 : JUnit tests are difficult 
> to run), I don't always think of commenting to "+1" a patch when I 
> have no objections on it.
>
> So here, +1 on designing reviewers :)
>
> Laurent Goubet
> Obeo
>
> Ed Willink a écrit :
> > Hi Folks
> >
> > We have a problem with our current approval process that is making it 
> > very difficult for me to proceed.
> >
> > _Bug 288040 __OCL 2.1 grammar precedence rule changes_
> >
> > has a patch awaiting +1 since 2-September. On 21-September, Adolfo 
> > commented
> >
> > "As it has been manifested, I (we) shouldn't delay too much patches's 
> > revision,
> > since we make the assignee waste time. I hope to respond earlier in 
> > future
> > bugs."
> >
> > _Bug 184048 __OCLLPGParser.g grammer incorrectly defines 'if' 
> > expression_
> >
> > has a patch awaiting +1 since 19-September.
> >
> > _Bug 259031 __Provide support for oclType() operation per OMG OCL 2.1 
> > RTF
> > _
> > has a patch awaiting +1 since 13-September.
> >
> > _Bug 254919 __JUnit tests are difficult to run
> > _
> > has a patch awaiting +1 since 14-September
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Re Adolfo's comment in 288040 "Is there any chance to do the 
> > modifications yourself, and uploading it again ?."
> > The answer is a very firm No. I already have to do all the work 
> > twice. Once to develop it, and again to apply it
> > once approval is granted; intervening parser changes seem to trash a 
> > lot as Adolfo has discovered. I cannot
> > be expected to do it again each time a reviewer has time to review. 
> > The reviewer must review promptly or
> > recreate the project as at the time of submission. (Maybe we should 
> > make three-way compare work in
> > the Apply Patch dialog.)
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Suggestion:
> >
> > For each project area (parser, library, evaluator, validator, tests 
> > etc), we designate a primary committer and a secondary
> > committer.
> >
> > Patches are to be reviewed by at least either primary or secondary 
> > committer (usually the other one) within 7 days,
> > unless an 'out-of-contact' period has been notified to mdt-ocl-dev in 
> > which case the period extends to
> > 7 days + 'out-of-contact' period with a maximum of 21 days. At the 
> > end of this approval timeout, in the absence
> > of a constructive -1, approval is automatic. Not more than 15 days 
> > 'out-of-contact' per committer per quarter.
> >
> >     Regards
> >
> >        Ed Willink
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> > mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
> >   
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev