IMPORTANT REMINDER: 2 Reviews (ie approvals) are required for most client-libs changes

[Philip Race]

That would be nice but I suspect it would not be easy to get agreement 
on that.

At least the dev guide also says "Some teams may require more Reviewers."
https://openjdk.org/guide/#fixing-a-bug

And it recommends 24 business hrs as well ..

"In general all PRs should be open for at least 24 hours to allow for 
reviewers in all time zones to get a chance to see it. It may actually 
happen that even 24 hours isn’t enough. Take into account weekends, 
holidays, and vacation times throughout the world and you’ll realize 
that a change that requires more than just a trivial review may have to 
be open for a while. In some areastrivial 
<https://openjdk.org/guide/#trivial>changes are allowed to be pushed 
without the 24 hour delay. Ask your reviewers if you think this applies 
to your change."

https://openjdk.org/guide/#life-of-a-pr

-phil.

On 7/13/23 1:24 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> I think it would be less confusing all around to have a general 
> requirement for 2 reviewers across the whole OpenJDK.
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:28 PM Philip Race <philip.race at oracle.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     Please see "Code Reviews" on the Group page
>     https://openjdk.org/groups/client-libs/ where it says
>
>     The Java Client Library Group has always standardized on two
>     approvals - where at least one must have the Reviewer role.
>     Historically this was addressed entirely by social conventions but
>     today the tooling plays a role - and the JDK project is set up to
>     mark a PR as ready for integration after a single approval by a
>     person with the Reviewer role - which is not consistent with the
>     Client Libraries policy.
>     The tooling cannot automatically enforce this on a per-module
>     basis and it is not reasonable to expect others to add "/reviewers
>     2" to every PR.
>     The fixer therefore needs to understand the policies and wait for
>     a second approval.
>
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     As an example of a PR about which there was zero urgency and
>     should have had a 2nd approval see
>
>     https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14795
>
>     -phil.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/client-libs-dev/attachments/20230713/7710d5af/attachment.htm>