aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com>
Subject Re: Shepherding new contributions
Date Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:07:49 GMT
We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the TARGET_PEOPLE
as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script to
add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we
wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of
Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based
on that).

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org> wrote:

> I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Zameer Manji
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message