Thanks for pushing all of this, +1 on 7.
To be clear, I am one of the group A contributors on Jarek's list, so I am
not a neutral party here.
Personally I would prefer a higher cap like 10... but I agree with Jarek's
and Vincent's point that reviewing and helping others is what Airflow needs
most right now.
I ran some numbers for group A. Since drafts PR now count, here is what a
cap of 7 means for the 9 people in that group:
("typical / busy" = open PRs at p50 / p90 over the days they had any PR
open; "over 7" = share of those days above 7):
- SameerMesiah97: typical 7, busy 10, over 7 on 43% of days
- shivaam: typical 4, busy 7, over 7 on 9%
- Vamsi-klu: typical 6, busy 13, over 7 on 45%
- Andrushika: typical 7, busy 11, over 7 on 48%
- yuseok89: typical 4, busy 10, over 7 on 18%
- steveahnahn: typical 2, busy 10, over 7 on 20%
- ColtenOuO: typical 5, busy 25, over 7 on 40%
- stephen-bracken: typical 1, busy 6, over 7 on 1%
- fat-catTW: typical 5, busy 17, over 7 on 42%
With a cap of 7, about half of the group would be at or above the limit on
roughly 4 days in 10.
I am not raising this to argue for a higher number; completely fine
starting at 7 for the reason above. Just want it on record, so that if we
revisit the number later we have a baseline.
On a related note, I like Henry's trust list idea (the bypass list Damian
mentioned).
The numbers above show that the number of good contributors (I assume that
is group A mentioned above) that would need it is small, so the bypass list
should be easy to maintain.
If we agree it is the right direction, I can look into the .asf.yaml side.
Thanks,
Andrew
