geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joris Melchior <jmelch...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:05:35 GMT
Would it be possible to allow people who do not have committer status to
request reviewers on a pull request. In some cases we may know who should
take a look at it and in that case making it official by adding these
people to the pull request would be good IMO.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:26 AM Jens Deppe <jdeppe@pivotal.io> wrote:

> As reviewers we should also feel empowered to request additional reviewers
> on a PR (perhaps beyond whomever the original submitter may already have
> requested).
>
> I think that, sometimes the complexity of a change prevents someone from
> commenting on just a portion of the change if they do not feel comfortable
> understanding the scope of the whole change.
>
> Having said that though, once you have 'touched' a PR you should also be
> tracking the PR for additional commits or feedback until it is merged.
>
> --Jens
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:37 AM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If we trust committers, why review at all? Just commit... and we might
> > > catch a problem, we might not.
> >
> > Honestly that to me would be the ideal state. However, our test coverage
> > and code quality is nowhere near to allow for that.
> >
> > What I was referring to is different though. I didn't say "trust them to
> > write perfect code", but trust " to decide how much review they require
> to
> > feel comfortable".  In some cases this might mean one review and in
> others
> > maybe two, three or even more and maybe even by very specific people.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:31 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Alexander, thank you for your response. And yes, change is
> uncomfortable
> > > and in some cases more reviewers would not have caught issues. BUT,
> more
> > > people would have seen the code, maybe become more familiar with it,
> > etc...
> > >
> > > I don't say don't trust committers, as I am one. But I also know that I
> > > mistakes are made regardless of intent. If we trust committers, why
> > > review at all? Just commit... and we might catch a problem, we might
> not.
> > >
> > > --Udo
> > >
> > > On 6/5/19 11:20, Alexander Murmann wrote:
> > > > Udo, I agree with many of the pains you are addressing, but am
> > > pessimistic
> > > > that having more reviewers will solve them.
> > > >
> > > > You are absolutely correct in calling out that the code is ugly
> complex
> > > and
> > > > missing coverage. The best way to address this is to clean up the
> code
> > > and
> > > > improve coverage. You say yourself "In the past single small changes
> > have
> > > > caused failures the were completely unforeseen by anyone". I don't
> > think
> > > > more eyeballs will go a long way in making someone see complex bugs
> > > > introduced by seemingly safe changes.
> > > >
> > > > I also am concerned that introducing a hurdle like this will make
> > > > committers more excited to review PRs with care, but rather might
> lead
> > to
> > > > less care. It  would be great of our committers were more passionate
> > > about
> > > > PR reviews and do them more often, but forcing it rarely accomplishes
> > > that
> > > > goal.
> > > >
> > > > I'd rather see us trust our committers to decide how much review they
> > > > require to feel comfortable about their work and use the time saved
> to
> > > > address the root of the problem (accidental complexity & lack of test
> > > > coverage)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:03 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> @Kirk, I totally understand the pain that you speak of. I too agree
> > that
> > > >> every line of changed code should have a test confirming that
> behavior
> > > >> was not changed.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't believe that we need to go as far as revoking committer
> rights
> > > >> and reviewing each committer again, BUT it would be AMAZING that out
> > of
> > > >> our 100 committers, 80% of them would be more active in PR reviews,
> > > >> mailing lists and in the end active on the project outside of their
> > > >> focus area.
> > > >>
> > > >> I do want to remind all Geode committers, it IS your responsibility
> to
> > > >> be part of the PR review cycle. I will hold myself just as
> accountable
> > > >> to this than what I hold every committer to, as I've been just as
> lazy
> > > >> as the rest of them.
> > > >>
> > > >> BUT
> > > >>
> > > >> The reality is:
> > > >>
> > > >>   1. Geode code is HUGELY complex and NOT a test complete as we'd
> like
> > > >>   2. In the past single small changes have caused failures the were
> > > >>      completely unforeseen by anyone
> > > >>   3. In the past commits with single reviewers, have caused backward
> > > >>      compatibility issues which were only caught by chance in
> > unrelated
> > > >>      testing.
> > > >>   4. There are 100 committers on Geode, and we keep on arguing that
> it
> > > is
> > > >>      hard to get PR's reviewed and that is why it is ok to have
> only 1
> > > >>      reviewer per PR.
> > > >>   5. There seems to be majority (unstated) opinion of: "why change,
> it
> > > >>      has been working for us so far." (I call is unstated, because
> > being
> > > >>      silent means you agree with the status quo)
> > > >>   6. With requiring only 1 reviewer on code submissions, we are
> > possibly
> > > >>      creating areas of the code only understood by a few.
> > > >>
> > > >> IF, we as a project, have decided that all code shall enter only
> > through
> > > >> the flow of PR, then why not extend the QA cycle a little by
> requiring
> > > >> more eyes. Lazy consensus, is as stated, lazy and would only work
> in a
> > > >> project where the levels of complexity and size are not as high as
> > > >> Geode's. In addition, with PR submissions, we have admitted that we
> > are
> > > >> human and could make mistakes and in an already complex environment
> > and
> > > >> to the best of our ability get it wrong.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, there are commits that really do not require 3 pairs of eyes,
> > > >> because spelling mistakes and typos don't need consensus. But any
> time
> > > >> code logic was amended, this needs to be reviewed.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have seen different approach to code submissions:
> > > >>
> > > >>    * The submitter of the PR is NOT the committer of the PR. This
> task
> > > is
> > > >>      the responsibility of another committer(s) to review, approve
> and
> > > >>      finally merge in.
> > > >>    * Smaller amount of committers with higher numbers of
> contributors.
> > > >>      Yes, this does create a bottleneck, but it promotes a sense of
> > > pride
> > > >>      and responsibility that individual feels. Possibly a greater
> > > >>      understanding of the target module is promoted through this
> > > approach
> > > >>      as well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, I don't say we as a project should follow these strict or
> > > >> restricting approaches, but from my perspective, if we as a project
> > > >> argue that we struggle to find 3 reviewers out of 100, then there
> are
> > > >> bigger problems in the project than we anticipated. It is not a lack
> > of
> > > >> trust in our committers, to me it is a sense of pride that I want
> > other
> > > >> committers to confirm that I've delivered code to the high standard
> > that
> > > >> we want to be known for. Whilst it is painful to go through the
> > process,
> > > >> but if done correctly it is beneficial to all involved, as differing
> > > >> opinions and approaches can be shared and all can learn from.
> > > >>
> > > >> In addition, I have personally stumbled upon a few PR's, which upon
> > > >> review found to be lacking in the areas of best practices of code
> > and/or
> > > >> design.
> > > >>
> > > >> I fully support the notion of 3 reviewers per PR. I'm also going to
> > take
> > > >> it one step further, in the list of reviewers, there is at least 1
> > > >> reviewer that is not part of a team, as this might drive a unbiased
> > view
> > > >> of the code and approach. I would also like to encourage ALL
> > committers
> > > >> to review code outside of the focus area. This will only promote a
> > > >> broader understanding of the project codebase. I also support the
> > notion
> > > >> of a pair/mobbing reviews, if a reviewer does not understand the
> > problem
> > > >> area enough to effectively review, OR where the solution is not
> > > apparent.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Udo
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/4/19 16:49, Kirk Lund wrote:
> > > >>> I'm -1 for requiring N reviews before merging a commit.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Overall, I support Lazy Consensus. If I post a PR that fixes the
> > > >> flakiness
> > > >>> in a test, the precheckin jobs prove it, and it sits there for
2
> > weeks
> > > >>> without reviews, then I favor merging it in at that point without
> any
> > > >>> reviews. I'm not going to chase people around or spam the dev
list
> > over
> > > >> and
> > > >>> over asking for reviews. Nothing in the Apache Way says you have
to
> > do
> > > >>> reviews before committing -- some projects prefer "commit then
> > review"
> > > >>> instead of "review then commit". You can always look at the code
> > > someone
> > > >>> changed and you can always change it further or revert it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think if we don't trust our committers then we have a bigger
> > systemic
> > > >>> problem that becoming more strict about PR reviews isn not going
to
> > > fix.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Overall, I also favor pairing/mobbing over reviews. Without being
> > there
> > > >>> during the work, a reviewer lacks the context to understand why
it
> > was
> > > >> done
> > > >>> the way it was done.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If we cannot establish or maintain trust in committers, then I
> think
> > we
> > > >>> should remove committer status from everyone and start over as
a
> > > project,
> > > >>> proposing and accepting one committer at a time.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Instead of constraints on reviews, I would prefer to establish
new
> > > >> criteria
> > > >>> for coding such as:
> > > >>> 1) all classes touched in a PR must have a unit test created if
> none
> > > >> exists
> > > >>> 2) all code touched in a PR must have unit test coverage (and
> > possibly
> > > >>> integration test coverage) specific to the changes
> > > >>> 3) all new classes must have full unit test coverage
> > > >>> 4) all code touched in a PR must follow clean code principles
> (which
> > > >> would
> > > >>> obviously need defining on the wiki)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Then it becomes the responsibility of the author(s) and
> committer(s)
> > of
> > > >>> that PR to ensure that the code and the PR follows the project's
> > > criteria
> > > >>> for code quality and test coverage. It also becomes easier to
> measure
> > > the
> > > >>> PRs of a non-committer to determine if we think they would make
a
> > good
> > > >>> committer (for example, do they adhere to clean code quality and
> unit
> > > >>> testing with mocks? -- along with any other criteria).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>> It seems common for Geode PRs to get merged with only a single
> green
> > > >>>> checkmark in GitHub.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> According to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
we
> > should
> > > >> not
> > > >>>> be merging PRs with fewer than 3 green checkmarks.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Consensus is a fundamental value in doing things The Apache
Way.
> A
> > > >> single
> > > >>>> +1 is not consensus.  Since we’re currently discussing what
it
> takes
> > > to
> > > >>>> become a committer and what standards a committer is expected
to
> > > >> uphold, it
> > > >>>> seems like a good time to review this policy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> GitHub can be configured to require N reviews before a commit
can
> be
> > > >>>> merged.  Should we enable this feature?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Owen
> > > >>>> VOTES ON CODE MODIFICATION <
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification
> > >
> > > >>>> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the
> proposal,
> > > but
> > > >>>> -1 votes are vetos <
> > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto>
> > > >>>> and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their
-1
> > votes.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus <
> > > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
,
> > three
> > > +1
> > > >>>> votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Whole numbers are recommended for this type of vote, as the
> opinion
> > > >> being
> > > >>>> expressed is Boolean: 'I approve/do not approve of this change.'
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> CONSENSUS GAUGING THROUGH SILENCE <
> > > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
> > > >>>> An alternative to voting that is sometimes used to measure
the
> > > >>>> acceptability of something is the concept of lazy consensus
<
> > > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus>.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives
> assent.’
> > > When
> > > >>>> someone wants to determine the sense of the community this
way, it
> > > >> might do
> > > >>>> so with a mail message such as:
> > > >>>> "The patch below fixes GEODE-12345; if no-one objects within
three
> > > days,
> > > >>>> I'll assume lazy consensus and commit it."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Lazy consensus cannot be used on projects that enforce a
> > > >>>> review-then-commit <
> > > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit>
> > > >> policy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
>


-- 
*Joris Melchior *
CF Engineering
Pivotal Toronto
416 877 5427

“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>

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