I basically like what I hear. Some wise words :-)
On 9 Jan 2013, at 9:00 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
There has been a tendency to let PR sit a bit longer than it should
as
we all try to get our stuff done before diving into other's PRs.
I have been particularly guilty and Hibernate OGM is a particularly bad
example. I did not see too much lagging PRs on other projects
Right. I feel Search for example is working quite well.
Should we have a team member on watch whose priority for a week is
addressing pull requests?
Not sure. The idea has some merits, but I am not sure that it is necessary.
I also think opening issues to things that are not fully on the topic
is
a good strategy to keep the cycle on a given PR short.
What is the definition of not fully on topic. I would not suggest a change in
class X for a pull request where only class Y and Z are affected. However,
if class X is touched and I see a potential improvement I think it can be considered
being part of the topic. Boy Scout rule number one:" Always leave the campground
cleaner than you found it." I truly believe in this one, but of course sometimes a
potential improvement would have too big of a ripple effect to be pursued.
That does not
mean one won't work directly on these after the PR is done
Here we have to disagree. Unless you do it here and now the chances are slim
you are following up.
About the preview, I have to disagree with Sanne and Hardy, I do
like
them and find them to be the least worse tool to show a preview and get
feedback. I'm sorry but I have done it many times on JIRA and via emails
and the feedback is not the same by far.
My experience with asking for feedback on my feature branches is actually
quite good. Kudos to Gunnar and Sanne on their helps. I guess if I felt I would be
left hanging on this type of feedback, I would create these "preview" pull
requests
as well.
Like many rules, they are meant to be broken and good judgement is
highly
preferable
That's the part I like best.
+100
--Hardy