brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aled Sage <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New standards for PR reviewing.
Date Mon, 08 May 2017 15:45:09 GMT
+1 (binding)

On 08/05/2017 11:55, Richard Downer wrote:
> There have been recent discussions about how the committers assess PRs for
> merging. The discussion is summarised below and the original thread
> available at [1].
> The consensus of the discussion is to adopt new standards for committers
> reviewing PRs, as follows:
> ------
> If a PR has not been reviewed within a certain amount of time - suggested
> to be 7 days, or less for smaller PRs - nor has a committer indicated that
> they are doing a detailed review, then the PR shall be considered for a
> less detailed review, an "eyeball test".
> Under an eyeball test, a reviewer will consider if the PR is:
> * clearly helpful & not obviously wrong
> * low-risk / doesn't break compatibility
> * good test coverage (and passing)
> * likely to be maintained
> If it passes the above criteria, then the reviewer will add a comment to
> the PR, and ask if further review is appropriate, possibly tagging specific
> committers who may be interested. Then if there is no objection within 72
> hours, passive consensus should be assumed, and the PR merged.
> If the PR does not pass the above criteria, the reviewer should say what
> they have doubts about, suggest what the contributor could do to help,
> and/or appeal to other committers more familiar with an area. If
> appropriate, move from GitHub onto the mailing list. (The aim here is to
> get a discussion going and not give the contributor the impression their PR
> is being ignored.)
> ------
> This vote is to decide if we wish to adopt these standards for all PR
> reviews going forward, and to document these standards in our website.
> This vote will be open for a minimum of 72 hours.
> [ ] +1 - adopt this standard
> [ ] 0 - no opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not adopt this standard, because:
> ------
> Background:
> This is related to the recent thread at [1].
> Traditionally, this project has had a high bar for reviewing contributions
> prior to merging. This dates back to the project's inception, before it was
> part of Apache. Reviewers would be expected to inspect the code and
> personally test it before allowing it to be merged.
> There has been concern expressed that this is holding back Brooklyn
> development. Reviewing a PR can be time-consuming; often a detailed review
> requires expert knowledge in a particular area of the code which only some
> committers possess. The result is that PRs, especially larger ones or ones
> in core areas of the project, do not receive timely review, and in some
> cases languish far too long. This is bad for the project as it holds back
> our velocity, and frustrates contributors who see their changes stuck in
> the system for extended lengths of time.
> Since we joined the ASF, we have had feedback from others with experience
> in Apache that we are too conservative with our code review requirements.
> We also recognise the value in automated testing to catch regressions
> (although these constantly need work, of course), and in our Git source
> control to enable us to revert changes that turn out to be particularly
> problematic. We can relax our strict reviewing requirements, which will
> increase our velocity, and show our contributors that their work is
> receiving attention and getting merged. Should a merge prove to be
> problematic, their is still opportunity to do a bug fix (and get it merged
> under the same fast process, too), and ultimately the chance to "revert"
> the merge if necessary.
> So we believe that the quality of the finished product will not be
> adversely affected by these changes.
> [1]
> Thanks
> Richard.

View raw message