I’ve conducted a first review, and the collection imo satisfies the requirements and ready for inclusion.
Could anybody from the @SteeringCommittee conduct the second short review as specified in the comment? i.e. to check only the following would be enough (just copy this to a comment in the discussion and go through it):
modules that only gather information are named <something>_info
modules that return ansible_facts are named <something>_facts and do not return non-facts
other modules must not allow querying information using specific state option values, or similar mechanisms (like state=get or state=query). These features should be moved to <something>_info or <something>_fact modules.
check_mode is supported in all _info and _facts modules
@SteeringCommittee could anybody please review? Otherwise, we should change the policy to make one review sufficient for inclusion if there are no volunteers within SC for a week or so.
The list of the items to check is very short, shouldn’t take longer than 15 minutes max to check a few modules.
It’s kind of hard to review a PowerShell collection if you don’t know PowerShell. I’m not sure how many folks in SC know enough about PowerShell to be able to do a good review for this one, but I guess the number is smaller than the number of all persons in the SC. (Well it definitely is, since I’m at least one such person…)
Anyway, I don’t think reducing requirements is a solution to the review problem.
I’ve done the 2nd review. While I don’t know Powershell, I know that Jordan’s previous collections are to a high standard. So I felt comfortable approving this.
I don’t think we need to reduce the requirements either.