<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
Please see "Code Reviews" on the Group page <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://openjdk.org/groups/client-libs/">https://openjdk.org/groups/client-libs/</a> where it says<br>
<br>
<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: "DejaVu Sans", "Bitstream Vera
Sans", "Luxi Sans", Verdana, Arial, Helvetica;
font-size: 13.333333px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; display:
inline !important; float: none;">The Java Client Library Group has
always standardized on two approvals - where at least one must
have the Reviewer role.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
The fixer therefore needs to understand the policies and wait for
a second approval.<br>
<br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>
<br>
As an example of a PR about which there was zero urgency and
should have had a 2nd approval see<br>
<br>
</span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14795">https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14795</a><br>
<br>
-phil.<br>
</body>
</html>