spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review/merge phase, and post-review
Date Sat, 14 Nov 2020 06:41:36 GMT
I am sure you are referring to some specific instances but I have not
followed enough to know what they are. Can you point them out? I think that
is most productive for everyone to understand.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:16 PM Jungtaek Lim <>

> Hi devs,
> I know this is a super sensitive topic and at a risk of flame, but just
> like to try this. My apologies first.
> Assuming we all know about the ASF policy about code commit and I don't
> see Spark project has any explicit BYLAWS, it's technically possible to do
> anything for committers to do during merging.
> Sometimes this goes a bit depressing for reviewers, regardless of the
> intention, when merger makes a judgement by oneself to merge while the
> reviewers are still in the review phase. I observed the practice is used
> frequently, under the fact that we have post-review to address further
> comments later.
> I know about the concern that it's sometimes blocking unintentionally if
> we require merger to gather consensus about the merge from reviewers, but
> we also have some other practice holding on merging for a couple of days
> and noticing to reviewers whether they have further comments or not, which
> is I think a good trade-off.
> Exclude the cases where we're in release blocker mode, wouldn't we be hurt
> too much if we ask merger to respect the practice on noticing to reviewers
> that merging will be happen soon and waiting a day or so? I feel the
> post-review is opening the possibility for reviewers late on the party to
> review later, but it's over-used if it is leveraged as a judgement that
> merger can merge at any time and reviewers can still continue reviewing.
> Reviewers would feel broken flow - that is not the same experience with
> having more time to finalize reviewing before merging.
> Again I know it's super hard to reconsider the ongoing practice while the
> project has gone for the long way (10 years), but just wanted to hear the
> voices about this.
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

View raw message