From dev-return-31352-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Tue Jul 9 20:44:54 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BF5F18062B for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 22:44:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 19193 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2019 20:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 19182 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jul 2019 20:44:53 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:44:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CDECCC02DC for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:44:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.301 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-he-de.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LNX2IMrvrJ8 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:44:51 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=148.163.150.38; helo=mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com; envelope-from=jmelchior@pivotal.io; receiver= Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 5D28E7E210 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114583.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x69Ken8i012884 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:44:48 GMT Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tjjdptx5s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:44:47 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id m25so21242lfh.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=GZ9UIjyNJC3NZiHfBhkMKIEFhavH5JUnz9AJVdcTkp0=; b=jOIygn+kl6qfFVo7ylMNoZp4o1Lfjc79bQ7FvFFFzPVSB2DvTxMmy4Jqf05BCPKHzc JVSghbeHYmGVII2h7iQhjxCeW2i/JeTRGSGsw0gJa+uL0INJp15fhlOKJbjnYeKpsfjc mdLz5Y6wcofHLxMufxE6+IaPR4TCk6GJFFHoN5gxF3xZLAP3IIsr1mr7Hz5LnIHmcEz4 qqEy2P7gPc7huviVmWgY8z8AJv4k53Y4tjVAZKHx2hH9KpTIC1YaVmeODmb9OdmnWDlH rB/49z9Hq4XT6dSWCFydG5lXJiWH/3LyfaN0TZddmFZ7yT8STodN69o2Fw1YCONxJcFe Djlw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3pA8vsjpFZoQypICx+IKFJB+ZUKg3YCoRQD0rGTtaPAj0Aizu CMEm9XaTg+BI9g3pfpkRCjqTZ0EI3cgq9Tx4SIBB4n9JeQ144pONAAXqc5h8Agra6rMmgKdhEBN xNPqRy2u7MUQ1Kv4ZBwoev5fdV9v+hwROo6IgGv9g6ZVANo0vwVEnYYA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b1c1:: with SMTP id e1mr14895395lja.228.1562705085284; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:44:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqya+zU/hwHC1A8+j7sEy5w9xushZzFkOLUhhpcA5NtdUXfgyy5+x4kPzXwNROFumH4ck5cHYuv24VJsaoJsI90= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b1c1:: with SMTP id e1mr14895383lja.228.1562705084980; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:44:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11166F83-5763-4541-8967-E223CAAE7D99@pivotal.io> <25E421D6-4865-4A81-9689-4060B02082A7@pivotal.io> In-Reply-To: <25E421D6-4865-4A81-9689-4060B02082A7@pivotal.io> From: Joris Melchior Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews? To: dev@geode.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ab2c9058d45a1ff" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-09_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907090247 --0000000000007ab2c9058d45a1ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 on the assignee idea but understand Mark's concerns with inundating certain people. Is there a way that we can manage the load for reviewers? On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:17 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > In Github there is a request re-review option. I just learned more about > that today. > I think that people should probably be using that option to interact with > reviewers. > I do like the assignee idea. I worry that things might pile up on certain > people, > but that already kind of happening because certain people are doing more > reviews. > > Thanks, > Mark > > > > On Jul 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Benjamin Ross wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > I think having an assignee would help set better expectations between > > committer and reviewer. > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Dan Smith wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> What do you think about assigning someone to each PR to make sure it > gets > >> through the process? We don't currently seem to be using github's > >> "assignee" field. Committers can make themselves the assignee, but for > >> contributors we could assign a committer who will make sure the PR get= s > >> reviewed and merged in a timely fashion. > >> > >> -Dan > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:34 AM Mark Hanson wrote= : > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> TL;DR > >>> > >>> Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedba= ck > >>> within seven days of the last checkin to a PR? > >>> > >>> Long version > >>> > >>> I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for= a > >>> while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the > >>> longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could clos= e > >> out > >>> some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but > >>> reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days= . > >> One > >>> might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I ha= ve > >> not > >>> provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat... > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Mark > >> > > --=20 *Joris Melchior * CF Engineering Pivotal Toronto 416 877 5427 =E2=80=9CPrograms must be written for people to read, and only incidentally= for machines to execute.=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 *Hal Abelson* --0000000000007ab2c9058d45a1ff--