As long as the code being changed is local to an analysis module and not used by other parts of the main yt codebase, yes, I'm all for dropping the 3 reviewer requirement to 2. 1 might be pushing it though. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's precisely what I had in mind.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
[+-][01] on reducing review overhead for analysis modules?
Does this just mean reducing the number of PR reviewers before we merge
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: pull
requests? I'd be ok with that, but just want to clarify what you have in mind.
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels NSF Postdoctoral Fellow Department of Astronomy California Institute of Technology http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org