On 17 July 2015 at 01:49, Meador Inge email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Given the global nature of the lists, I think we should be giving folks *at least* 24 hours to reply to a question before assuming they're not going to respond, and given that only some of us get to count reading and replying to python-dev threads as work time, a few days leeway would be better (perhaps even a week to account for folks that are busy with other things during the week and mostly contribute on weekends). Those of us that *do* get paid for this also need to try to remember to account for that asymmetry in available time for participation.
To me this depends on why the change is being questioned. If there is a question about why a change was made or a minor bug was found in post-commit review*, then I agree it can wait a few days. On the other hand, if someone commits a change that turns all the build-bots red and doesn't respond for several hours, then I would think that is fair game to revert.
So, I do think reverting changes is a very reasonable course of action at times. It should just be used judiciously.
I agree. The problem at the moment is that the norms around various things (particularly relating to pre-commit and post-commit review) are not only largely unwritten but have also changed over time, so we sometimes get mismatched expectations.
Longer term, there are actually some real tooling problems worth fixing (hence the forge.python.org proposals, and the core workflow GSoC projects), but a bit more clarity in our expectations wouldn't hurt in the meantime.