| Re: [glassfish-dev] PRs and reviews |
|
GlassFish has many downstream distributions and downstream consumers of components. Therefore in general I favour opportunity to review over speed for anything non-trivial.
On a separate note we also need to make sure that all CQs are being filed correctly or IPZilla is consulted when needed for bringing in or updating versions of 3rd party content that will
end up in a distribution. Steve From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of arjan tijms Hi, Indeed, last few weeks it's a larger amount of commits with typically a tagged reviewer from the same company. However if you look a little bit further back it's typically reviewers from 4 organisations (Payara,
Fujitsu, Oracle and OmniFaces) and an individual. Reviews have indeed come in from all those. We recently voted in Piotr Żygieło as an individual, who's been doing really well in reviewing, even when not always explicitly tagged for review. That all being said, I do believe in the openness of open source and the repo, and the ability of anyone to raise concerns and do PRs to revert things if needed. Mark Thomas (CC'ed) started a discussion about
that a couple of times, and most repos he contributes to now work like that. It has advantages as that the pace of development is not unnecessarily constrained for many trivial things such as a version update of say the compiler plug-in. OpenMQ for example
does a large number of commits as well, and would be severely slowed down if every commit needed a review. There's also a minimum window to merge things in the GlassFish project, as we run a great number of tests on every commit, which need to pass first. At any length, I'll make sure to always tag a representative number of people for PRs, and after the GlassFish 7 release we can allow for some more time. Kind regards, Arjan Tijms On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 1:13 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|