[Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process

Hanchett, Paul phanchet at jaguarlandrover.com
Thu Nov 7 21:05:12 GMT 2013


Sounds OK to me but I have to admit that so far I don't have much skin in
this game.

Is there an easy way to make this aging automatic?  Also, are ACR's either
accepted as-is or rejected?  Do we need a "hold" status for things neither
approved nor rejected but under discussion?  Maybe that's already taken
care of?

Paul


Paul Hanchett
-------------------
Infotainment Engineer
MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover
One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor, Portland,
Oregon, 97204

Email: phanchet at jaguarlandrover.com
-------------------

Business Details:
Jaguar Land Rover Limited
Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
Registered in England No: 1672070


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <ys71.kim at samsung.com> wrote:

> What do you think about the following rule?
>
> "An ACR which does not get any comments from anyone of ACR reviewers for
> two
> weeks is considered to be implicitly rejected"
>
> For now, we can settle on two weeks period. If someone raises an issue
> about
> this period, let's reconsider it.
> If none has an opinion against this, I'll update the wiki page for ACR
> review
> process.
>
> BR,
> ---
> Yoonsoo Kim(ys71.kim AT samsung.com)
> Principal SW Engineer/Software Architect
> Mobile R&D Office
> Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hanchett, Paul [mailto:phanchet at jaguarlandrover.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:10 PM
> > To: Yoonsoo Kim
> > Cc: Mats Wichmann; dev at lists.tizen.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process
> >
> > Implied rejection seems right then, if combined with a reasonable age
> gate
> > (what would be reasonable?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Hanchett
> > -------------------
> > Infotainment Engineer
> > MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover
> > One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor,
> Portland,
> > Oregon, 97204
> >
> > Email: phanchet at jaguarlandrover.com
> > -------------------
> >
> > Business Details:
> > Jaguar Land Rover Limited
> > Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
> > Registered in England No: 1672070
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <ys71.kim at samsung.com>
> > wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> > Please, find my inline comments.
> >
> > BR,
> > ---
> > Yoonsoo Kim(ys71.kim AT samsung.com)
> > Principal SW Engineer/Software Architect
> > Mobile R&D Office
> > Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hanchett, Paul [mailto:phanchet at jaguarlandrover.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:01 PM
> > > To: Yoonsoo Kim
> > > Cc: Mats Wichmann; product-dev at lists.tizen.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process
> > >
> > > It would be better for an unreviewed item to be escalated for
> > consideration by
> > > another reviewer--
> > >
> > Who will escalate an unreviewed item to whom?
> > The practical thing is that reviewers are very unlikely to fail to review
> > ACRs according to my experiences.
> > So, if you think "implied consent" rule is problematic, then I'd like to
> > propose following "implied rejection" rule. The escalation rule may
> impose
> > another complexity to the process.
> > One more thing I want to tell you is that discussion on feature itself
> and
> > design alternatives will be discussed on JIRA and the dev mailing list.
> An
> > ACR is a kind of a sub-item of a predefined work, not creating a new
> work.
> >
> > > Do you really want the failure of a reviewer to complete their task to
> > result in
> > > unreviewed items being added to the work?
> > >
> > > Seems wrong to me...
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Hanchett
> > > -------------------
> > > Infotainment Engineer
> > > MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover
> > > One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor,
> Portland,
> > > Oregon, 97204
> > >
> > > Email:쟰hanchet at jaguarlandrover.com
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > Business Details:
> > > Jaguar Land Rover Limited
> > > Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
> > > Registered in England No: 1672070
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <ys71.kim at samsung.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev-bounces at lists.tizen.org [mailto:
> dev-bounces at lists.tizen.org]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of Mats Wichmann
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:45 AM
> > > > To: dev at lists.tizen.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process
> > > >
> > > > On 11/05/2013 11:38 PM, Yoonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > This is a reminder notice for ACR review process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could anyone of you, who want to participate in API review
> > > > > or are expected to add/change/remove APIs, subscribe to
> > > > > tsg-arch-api at lists.tizen.org?
> > > >
> > > > I'm normally in the camp of being very cautious changing APIs, and
> the
> > > > process sounds attuned to this, which is okay. 쟔till, there's a
> slight
> > > > concern here:
> > > >
> > > > >> 2. Designated ACR reviewers give comments on the ACR on the
> mailing
> > > list
> > > > >> during review.
> > > > >> If they agree on the ACR, add "Reviewed-by: reviewer name
> <reviewer's
> > > e-
> > > > >> mail>" before
> > > > >> ACR body.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3. If the submitter gets "Reviewed-by" tag from all designated ACR
> > > > >> reviewers, he(or she) can upload it to "Tizen APIs" JIRA
> > > >
> > > > we have the possibility of the process stalling if some designated
> > > > reviewers don't actually get to the review. 쟕here's no description
> here
> > > > of "reasonable time for review" and "implied consent" (or "implied
> > > > rejection" if we want to be more cautious), so things can move
> forward.
> > > > 쟄as this been considered?
> > > >
> > > Mats, you have a point.
> > >
> > > I didn't consider the possibility but I'd like to follow "implied
> consent"
> > > rule
> > > in case of no response for "reasonable time" because it's the due
> > diligence
> > > of designated reviewers to review submitted ACRs.
> > >
> > > > -- mats
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dev mailing list
> > > > Dev at lists.tizen.org
> > > > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dev mailing list
> > > Dev at lists.tizen.org
> > > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tizen.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20131107/c74669ff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Dev mailing list