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 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:18:28 GMT
On Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Cathedral-Bazaar-Musings-Accidental-Revolutionary-ebook/dp/B0026OR3LM


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