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. >