+1 for lowering the barrier. At a minimum, tests should pass, and new tests should be encouraged if possible. Docs as well. Not too worried about 1 or 2 approvals. We could try 2 at first to see if this helps things out.
On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com>> wrote: That's precisely what I had in mind.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com <mailto: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 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 <mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org <http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org>
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-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 <http://chummels.org/> _______________________________________________ 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