aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Shepherding new contributions
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:50:01 GMT
This would work.
Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
accounted for.

- Henry

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@twopensource.com> wrote:
> I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new contributors
> than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we generally
> have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line of a
> review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant of
> their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
> reviewers have been assigned.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
>> <
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
>> >
>> it
>> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the
>> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
>> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good
>> next step.
>>
>> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
>> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
>> expertise to review it for quality.
>>
>> Does anyone else volunteer?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for that background, Henry!  That is actually useful for other
>> > unrelated thoughts I have had.  We will make sure to keep this in mind.
>> >
>> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
>> > > business.
>> > >
>> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
>> > > concept.
>> > >
>> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
>> > > responsibilities.
>> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
>> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
>> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
>> > >
>> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
>> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
>> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
>> > >
>> > > - Henry
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
>> jcohen@twopensource.com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across
>> the
>> > > code
>> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
>> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include
>> > all
>> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the
>> hook
>> > > for
>> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
>> > > >
>> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hey,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started
to
>> > > receive
>> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
>> populate
>> > > the
>> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person
>> to
>> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
>> dealing
>> > > with
>> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility
>> > could
>> > > be
>> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Zameer Manji
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > -=Bill
>> >
>> > --
>> > Zameer Manji
>> >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message