- From: Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 08:51:44 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
>As I said above, it's easier for me to take smaller PRs which stem from issues where we arrived at a consensus. The changes in this PR have interdependencies (the newly introduced abstract operations are linked together) so splitting would not work very well, and you'd be left with a PR that is harder to review. I'd compare this PR to #156 that landed without issues and everyone was happy afterwards, and feel splitting this PR is make-work. If reviewing this PR is a bandwidth issue for the current editors (and that's fine, it just needs to be acknowledged), we should look at expanding the editorial team, seek for volunteers to review this particular PR. Here's my proposed way forward with this PR: * Everyone (re-)reviews the issues this PR fixes documented in https://github.com/w3c/sensors/pull/197#issue-229656532 and notes in the respective issue(s) their concerns. Silence is considered consent as usual. I personally reviewed the issues and saw no disagreement. I noticed we did not document the proposed solution for #152 and have asked @pozdnyakov to address that. * When we've addressed all the concerns raised in the issues documented in https://github.com/w3c/sensors/pull/197#issue-229656532, the editors, reinforced with volunteers, will review this PR, land #210 that was already split out, rebase this PR and land it too. Any concerns? Thanks for your help! -- GitHub Notification of comment by anssiko Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sensors/pull/197#issuecomment-304228490 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 26 May 2017 08:51:50 UTC