mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Date Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:23:00 GMT
Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation?  I
am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from
other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been
quite successful within the Apache platform.  In fact, operating outside of
Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows.  We are only
just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into
three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good precedents.




On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@apache.org> wrote:

> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code
> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and
> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so
> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, the
> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as
> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code.  In my experience, I
> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they
> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked.
>
> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we
> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions.  The
> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize
> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code
> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the
> committer reviews,
> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this
> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer.
>
> Cheers
> Tianqi
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh <anirudh2290@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am
> for
> > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them
> > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a
> > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between
> PPMC
> > and committers).
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan <lanking520@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as
> C++,
> > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the
> > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this
> kind
> > > of documentation.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Qing
> > >
> > > ´╗┐On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" <eazhi.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >     +1
> > >     I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that
> > >     developers can easily request review from those reviewers.
> > >     On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     > I was suggesting something more concrete:
> > >     >
> > >     > - Add a Reviewers section to
> > >     >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md
> to
> > >     > list a list of Reviewers.
> > >     >     - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers
> > should
> > > highly
> > >     > value their reviews during the PR process.
> > >     > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors
> and
> > > nominate
> > >     > them as Reviewer.
> > >     > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of
> > > reviewers.
> > >     > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the
> > > reviewers
> > >     > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious
> > consideration.
> > >     >
> > >     > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current
> > > Reviewers
> > >     >    - Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will
> > > provide a
> > >     > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality
> > > standard of
> > >     > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait
> that
> > > needed
> > >     > from committer to merge code)
> > >     >
> > >     > Tianqi
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > steffenrochel@gmail.com>
> > >     > wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     > > +1
> > >     > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors
> > incl.
> > > code
> > >     > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release
> > > announcements
> > >     > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to
> highlight
> > > most
> > >     > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g.
> > > monthly),
> > >     > > specifically from non-committers?
> > >     > >
> > >     > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen <
> tqchen@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >     > >
> > >     > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my
> > > institutional email
> > >     > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit
> duplication
> > > of that).
> > >     > > I
> > >     > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize
> > > potential
> > >     > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g.
> > >     > > >
> > >     > > >
> > >     > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong
> > >     > > >
> > >     > > > Tianqi
> > >     > > >
> > >     > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier <
> > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > >     > > wrote:
> > >     > > >
> > >     > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list
is a
> > good
> > > idea.
> > >     > > > Also,
> > >     > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review
on the
> PR
> > > is another
> > >     > > > way
> > >     > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort.
> > >     > > > >
> > >     > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen <
> > tqchen@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >     > > > >
> > >     > > > > > Dear MXNet Community:
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms
of lowering
> > > the barrier
> > >     > > > of
> > >     > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the
project.
> > One
> > > of the
> > >     > > > > general
> > >     > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions.
I
> > > want to make
> > >     > > > the
> > >     > > > > > following proposal:
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize
> Reviewers
> > > in the
> > >     > > > > > community.  This is a "pseudo role" as there is
no such
> > > official role
> > >     > > > in
> > >     > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility
of
> > recognizing
> > > active
> > >     > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names
in the
> > > contributor
> > >     > > > list.
> > >     > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have
more code
> > > reviews.
> > >     > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to
find
> > committer
> > >     > > > candidates,
> > >     > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand
what is
> the
> > > bar of
> > >     > > code
> > >     > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code.
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence
when
> > > recruiting new
> > >     > > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership
> is
> > > about to
> > >     > > the
> > >     > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility
> > --
> > > which is
> > >     > > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history.
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > > > Please let me know what you think.
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > > > Tianqi
> > >     > > > > >
> > >     > > > >
> > >     > > >
> > >     > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     --
> > >     Yizhi Liu
> > >     DMLC member
> > >     Amazon Web Services
> > >     Vancouver, Canada
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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