reef-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Byung-Gon Chun <bgc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "The overhead of reviewing and testing"
Date Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:49:11 GMT
Hi,

We had related discussion in August 2015.
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-reef-dev/201508.mbox/%3C55DB2CDE.40804@weimo.de%3E

The [MINOR] tag has worked really well for SNU internal projects. I
strongly recommend the reef community adopts it. :-)

Thanks!
-Gon



On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> wrote:

> Oh, I missed your word, "We've had this discussion from the other side
> before".
> It's not a different story. Sorry!
>
> It's too late night. I had better go to bed before making another mistake.
>
> Dongjoon.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your generous comments. Actually, what I meant to focus is
> > the vice versa.
> >
> > "The reviewer (in a review cycle) should focus on only the PR code itself
> > like Blind Paper Review Process."
> >
> > - Why does a reviewer consider a contributor's other PRs?
> > - Why does a reviewer ask something beyond the scope of the PR?
> >   (As we know, contributors are not REEF's or PMC's full-time employees.)
> >
> > I dream that an ideal environment where any tiny contributions from
> anyone
> > are welcome equally(here, blindly) anytime.
> >
> > Although the content of PR does not improve REEF, a reviewer should say a
> > warm comment like 'Sorry, but thanks for making a PR', and give -1. I
> think
> > that's natural in Open Source Communities. (The PR code will be
> withdrawed
> > or closed.)
> >
> > I know that REEF community consists of strong developers and has warm
> > atmosphere in general. I wrote here because I was surprise about the
> > concept of `overhead`. I really wanted to listen others' opinions, too.
> > Thank you, Markus.
> >
> > Dongjoon.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Markus Weimer <markus@weimo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> thanks for bringing this up. It is an interesting, different angle on
> the
> >> review process. We've had this discussion from the other side before:
> >> contributors felt that the review cycle put a impediment onto them.
> >>
> >> I believe both arguments have a kernel of validity, but I also believe
> >> that reviews are super-crucial not only for code quality, but even more
> so
> >> for a shared understanding of the code. As you said, every committer and
> >> PMC member should use the opportunity to stay current with REEF's
> >> development via the review process. To be honest, that is often my
> reason
> >> for picking specific PRs: I want to know what's happening in that part
> of
> >> the code.
> >>
> >> That said, I think we should use every tool and idea available to remove
> >> friction from the process. Basic coding standard checks and test runs
> >> shouldn't be the work of human brains, but CPUs :) The work Mariia and
> you
> >> have been doing goes a long way towards that. There are some gaping
> holes
> >> (*ahem* .NET tests) which should be addressed soon.
> >>
> >> But I am rambling: What do other's think? Is the PR review process too
> >> burdensome? What (beyond the basic continuous integration setup) can we
> do
> >> to make it easier?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for bringing this up!
> >>
> >> Markus
> >>
> >
> >
>



-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

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