mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Module maintainers proposal
Date Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:42:47 GMT
i’d be +1 if CODEOWNERS file has a big note at the top saying basically
it’s just for watching code changes that you’d like to know about (to
review or just to follow) and that anyone can add themself.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:58 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does it have to be called "CODEOWNERS"? I would be more comfortable with
> it if it's a "watch list" where it just means you wish to watch code here
> or there in the source structure and anyone can add or remove their name
> from watching some part of the code at any time.
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree. How about we find another way to allow people to subscribe for
>> changes in a specific file or directory?
>>
>> -Marco
>>
>> Am 12.01.2018 8:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <cjolivier01@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"?
>> >
>> > http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf
>> >
>> > One of the points I took from this is that once a project finds its
>> stride,
>> > it actually runs more efficiently without centralization than with.
>> >
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Marco de Abreu <
>> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Chris,
>> > >
>> > > you have a good point about people being afraid of reviewing PRs which
>> > they
>> > > are not assigned to and I totally agree that we should encourage
>> > everybody
>> > > to review PRs.
>> > >
>> > > One important advantage I see in this is the notification: since we
>> are
>> > not
>> > > using the feature to required an approval, this step is entirely for
>> > > information purpose. I, for example, would like to get notified if a
>> PR
>> > to
>> > > change a CI file would be created. Just as an example: over
>> Christmas, a
>> > PR
>> > > to update mkl has been pushed without me knowing about it. Somehow,
>> after
>> > > my vacation, we started to get issues with mkl test - I only found out
>> > > about this PR after quite a long investigation. If we would extend the
>> > > usage of the code maintainers, we'll make sure that changes like these
>> > will
>> > > notify the people who have the best knowledge about that part.
>> > >
>> > > Marco
>> > >
>> > > Am 12.01.2018 8:03 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <
>> cjolivier01@gmail.com
>> > >:
>> > >
>> > > > -1 (binding)
>> > > >
>> > > > I totally understand the motivation for this (I've definitely saved
>> > > myself
>> > > > some grief by getting called out automatically for CMakeLists.txt
>> > stuff,
>> > > > for example), but I respectfully decline for the following
>> reason(s):
>> > > >
>> > > > I feel that defining code-owners has some negative effects.
>> > > >
>> > > > Other committers may be reluctant to start reviewing and approving
>> PRs
>> > > > since they aren't the one listed, so I feel this will in the
>> long-run
>> > > > reduce the number of people doing code reviews.
>> > > >
>> > > > If there aren't enough people doing PR's, then people can complain
>> on
>> > > dev@
>> > > > asking for review.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Chris
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Haibin Lin <haibin@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1 (binding)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 2018-01-12 10:10, kellen sunderland <
>> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2018 6:32 PM, "Steffen Rochel" <
>> steffenrochel@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I propose to adopt the proposal.
>> > > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Steffen
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi Isabel,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > My apologies that not saying that clearly.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The purpose of this proposal is encouraging more
>> contributors
>> > to
>> > > > help
>> > > > > > > > review and merge PRs. And also hope to shorten
the time for
>> a
>> > PR
>> > > to
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > merged. After assigning maintainers to modules,
then PR
>> > > > contributors
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > easily contact the reviewers. In other words,
github will
>> > > > > automatically
>> > > > > > > > assign the PR to the maintainer and send a notification
>> email.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I don't think I put the term "inbox" in my proposal.
I never
>> > > > > discussed
>> > > > > > > PRs
>> > > > > > > > with other contributors by sending email directly,
which is
>> > less
>> > > > > > > effective
>> > > > > > > > than just using github. I also don't aware any
other
>> > contributor
>> > > > use
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > direct email way. So I didn't clarify it on the
proposal.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm
<
>> > > > > isabel@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Am 9. Januar 2018 18:25:50 MEZ schrieb Mu
Li <
>> > > muli.cmu@gmail.com
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >We should encourage to contract a specific
contributor
>> for
>> > > > issues
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >PRs.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > My head translates "encourage to contact
specific
>> > contributor"
>> > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > "encourage to contact specific contributors
inbox". This
>> > > > translated
>> > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > is what I would highly discourage.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > See the disclaimer here for reasons behind
that:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://home.apache.org/~hossman/#private_q
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Isabel
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät
mit K-9
>> Mail
>> > > > > gesendet.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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