I agree the experiment isn't working very well.  I've been meaning to
change my listing from `compute` to `acero` for a while.  I'd be +1 for
just removing it though.

On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 6:44 AM Dewey Dunnington <de...@voltrondata.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Just a note that for me, the main problem is that I get automatic
> review requests for PRs that have nothing to do with R (I think this
> happens when a rebase occurs that contained an R commit). Because that
> happens a lot, it means I miss actual review requests and sometimes
> mentions because they blend in. I think CODEOWNERS results in me
> reviewing more PRs than if I had to set up some kind of custom
> notification filter but I agree that it's not perfect.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -dewey
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 10:04 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Some time ago we added a `.github/CODEOWNERS` file in the main Arrow
> > repo. The idea is that, when specific files or directories are touched
> > by a PR, specific people are asked for review.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it seems that, most of the time, this produces the
> > following effects:
> >
> > 1) the people who are automatically queried for review don't show up
> > (perhaps they simply ignore those automatic notifications)
> > 2) when several people are assigned for review, each designated reviewer
> > seems to hope that the other ones will be doing the work, instead of
> > doing it themselves
> > 3) contributors expect those people to show up and are therefore
> > bewildered when nobody comes to review their PR
> >
> > Do we want to keep CODEOWNERS? If we still think it can be beneficial,
> > we should institute a policy where people who are listed in that file
> > promise to respond to review requests: 1) either by doing a review 2) or
> > by de-assigning themselves, and if possible pinging another core
> developer.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antoine.
>

Reply via email to