mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Module maintainers proposal
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:04:47 GMT
Unfortunately, yes. This is hardcoded by GitHub:
https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/

Also, only committers can be selected as "code owners". Contributors will
not be notified. What does everybody think about replacing the CODEOWNERS
file with a proper task (maybe on CI) or service which handles this
notifiying properly in the long term?

-Marco

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:58 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