flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Introducing a review process for pull requests
Date Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:22:44 GMT
@Matthias: That's a good point. Each PR should be backed by a JIRA issue.
If that's not the case, we have to make the contributor aware of that rule.
I'll update the process to keep all discussions in JIRA (will be mirrored
to issues ML), OK?

@Theo: You are right. Adding this process won't be the silver bullet to fix
all PR related issues.
But I hope it will help to improve the overall situation.

Are there any other comment? Otherwise I would start to prepare add this to
our website.

Thanks, Fabian

2015-10-06 9:46 GMT+02:00 Theodore Vasiloudis <
theodoros.vasiloudis@gmail.com>:

> One problem that we are seeing with FlinkML PRs is that there are simply
> not enough commiters to "shepherd" all of them.
>
> While I think this process would help generally, I don't think it would
> solve this kind of problem.
>
> Regards,
> Theodore
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mjsax@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > One comment:
> > We should ensure that contributors follow discussions on the dev mailing
> > list. Otherwise, they might miss important discussions regarding their
> > PR (what happened already). Thus, the contributor was waiting for
> > feedback on the PR, while the reviewer(s) waited for the PR to be
> > updated according to the discussion consensus, resulting in unnecessary
> > delays.
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/05/2015 02:18 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > Along with our efforts to improve the “How to contribute” guide, I
> would
> > > like to start a discussion about a setting up a review process for pull
> > > requests.
> > >
> > > Right now, I feel that our PR review efforts are often a bit
> unorganized.
> > > This leads to situation such as:
> > >
> > > - PRs which are lingering around without review or feedback
> > > - PRs which got a +1 for merging but which did not get merged
> > > - PRs which have been rejected after a long time
> > > - PRs which became irrelevant because some component was rewritten
> > > - PRs which are lingering around and have been abandoned by their
> > > contributors
> > >
> > > To address these issues I propose to define a pull request review
> process
> > > as follows:
> > >
> > > 1. [Get a Shepherd] Each pull request is taken care of by a shepherd.
> > > Shepherds are committers that voluntarily sign up and *feel
> responsible*
> > > for helping the PR through the process until it is merged (or
> discarded).
> > > The shepherd is also the person to contact for the author of the PR. A
> > > committer becomes the shepherd of a PR by dropping a comment on Github
> > like
> > > “I would like to shepherd this PR”. A PR can be reassigned with lazy
> > > consensus.
> > >
> > > 2. [Accept Decision] The first decision for a PR should be whether it
> is
> > > accepted or not. This depends on a) whether it is a desired feature or
> > > improvement for Flink and b) whether the higher-level solution design
> is
> > > appropriate. In many cases such as bug fixes or discussed features or
> > > improvements, this should be an easy decision. In case of more a
> complex
> > > feature, the discussion should have been started when the mandatory
> JIRA
> > > was created. If it is still not clear whether the PR should be accepted
> > or
> > > not, a discussion should be started in JIRA (a JIRA issue needs to be
> > > created if none exists). The acceptance decision should be recorded by
> a
> > > “+1 to accept” message in Github. If the PR is not accepted, it should
> be
> > > closed in a timely manner.
> > >
> > > 3. [Merge Decision] Once a PR has been “accepted”, it should be brought
> > > into a mergeable state. This means the community should quickly react
> on
> > > contributor questions or PR updates. Everybody is encouraged to review
> > pull
> > > requests and give feedback. Ideally, the PR author does not have to
> wait
> > > for a long time to get feedback. The shepherd of a PR should feel
> > > responsible to drive this process forward. Once the PR is considered to
> > be
> > > mergeable, this should be recorded by a “+1 to merge” message in
> Github.
> > If
> > > the pull request becomes abandoned at some point in time, it should be
> > > either taken over by somebody else or be closed after a reasonable
> time.
> > > Again, this can be done by anybody, but the shepherd should feel
> > > responsible to resolve the issue.
> > >
> > > 4. Once, the PR is in a mergeable state, it should be merged. This can
> be
> > > done by anybody, however the shepherd should make sure that it happens
> > in a
> > > timely manner.
> > >
> > > IMPORTANT: Everybody is encouraged to discuss pull requests, give
> > feedback,
> > > and merge pull requests which are in a good shape. However, the
> shepherd
> > > should feel responsible to drive a PR forward if nothing happens.
> > >
> > > By defining a review process for pull requests, I hope we can
> > >
> > > - Improve the satisfaction of and interaction with contributors
> > > - Improve and speed-up the review process of pull requests.
> > > - Close irrelevant and stale PRs more timely
> > > - Reduce the effort for code reviewing
> > >
> > > The review process can be supported by some tooling:
> > >
> > > - A QA bot that checks the quality of pull requests such as increase of
> > > compiler warnings, code style, API changes, etc.
> > > - A PR management tool such as Sparks PR dashboard (see:
> > > https://spark-prs.appspot.com/)
> > >
> > > I would like to start discussions about using such tools later as
> > separate
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > Fabian
> > >
> >
> >
>

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