Spark is the only other Apache project I'm aware of that makes heavy use of GitHub pull requests. I did a quick scan of their pull requests, and just as you noted, it appears the assignee field is unusable.
https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls Their contribution guide also advises using "@username" notation in comments to request reviews from engineers who have worked on the same code in the past. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark#Con tributingtoSpark-PullRequest I'd say it's safe to assume this is an acceptable norm and proceed with this as the process for Apex. Of course, you're also empowered to try other things too if any Apex community members have alternative proposals. Apache does relatively little to dictate specific technical choices, and instead defers to the individual communities to make the best choices for themselves. One thing I will advise though is that we seek to use JIRA as the primary means of communication. Please make sure each pull request has a corresponding JIRA issue, and use the JIRA issue for significant technical discussions. If discussion starting on a pull request results in a significant technical decision for the project, then please at least summarize that decision back on the corresponding JIRA issue. (I don't think it's necessary to echo every pull request comment back to JIRA though, especially if it's minor spot comments on individual lines of code.) If your JIRA issues contain detailed discussion between community members, then this will be more visible to IPMC members. This will make it easier for them to see that Apex strives to satisfy the openness criteria to qualify for eventual graduation. Of course, all of this requires that the JIRA setup be completed in Apache infrastructure first. :-) I plan to follow up again if we don't hear anything by tomorrow. I hope this helps. --Chris Nauroth On 9/8/15, 3:51 PM, "Chetan Narsude" <[email protected]> wrote: >Sounds like a good idea. > >Is where we could follow the established norm though? I checked httpd, >hadoop but could not really find an example on outstanding pull request >where such a notation is followed. > >If no such norm, wondering if it's intentional. We cannot be the first >project to have this issue. > >-- >Chetan > > > > >On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> You may have noticed that after switch to the ASF repositories, there >>is no >> option to assign pull requests for review (tied to write access to the >> repository). >> >> As workaround, I thought that a comment on the pull request like >>"@username >> please review" could be used. >> >> Any other ideas? >>
