[yt-dev] Analysis module review process

Cameron Hummels chummels at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 14:39:49 PST 2015


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 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's precisely what I had in mind.
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at 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 at lists.spacepope.org
> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20151229/fed5d610/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org


More information about the yt-dev mailing list