+1 I also thought this was the norm. My read of the committer/contributor guide was that a committer couldn't unilaterally merge their own code (approval/LGTM needs to come from someone familiar with the component), rather than every review needs two committers. I don't recall a requirement than each PR have two committees attached, which I agree is burdensome especially for new contributors.
On Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:23 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: > I thought this was the norm already? I have been the sole reviewer a few > PRs by committers and I'm only a contributor. > > +1 > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:13 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > >> ++1 >> >> This is good reasoning. If you trust someone with the committer >> responsibilities [1] you should trust them to find an appropriate reviewer. >> >> Also: >> >> - adds a new way for non-committers and committers to bond >> - makes committers seem less like gatekeepers because it goes both ways >> - might help clear PR backlog, improving our community response latency >> - encourages committers to code* >> >> Kenn >> >> [1] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/ >> >> *With today's system, if a committer and a few non-committers are working >> together, then when the committer writes code it is harder to get it merged >> because it takes an extra committer. It is easier to have non-committers >> write all the code and the committer just does reviews. It is 1 committer >> vs 2 being involved. This used to be fine when almost everyone was a >> committer and all working on the core, but it is not fine any more. >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:50 PM Thomas Groh <tg...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hey all; >>> >>> I've been thinking recently about the process we have for committing >>> code, and our current process. I'd like to propose that we change our >>> current process to require at least one committer is present for each code >>> review, but remove the need to have a second committer review the code >>> prior to submission if the original contributor is a committer. >>> >>> Generally, if we trust someone with the ability to merge code that >>> someone else has written, I think it's sensible to also trust them to >>> choose a capable reviewer. We expect that all of the people that we have >>> recognized as committers will maintain the project's quality bar - and >>> that's true for both code they author and code they review. Given that, I >>> think it's sensible to expect a committer will choose a reviewer who is >>> versed in the component they are contributing to who can provide insight >>> and will also hold up the quality bar. >>> >>> Making this change will help spread the review load out among regular >>> contributors to the project, and reduce bottlenecks caused by committers >>> who have few other committers working on their same component. Obviously, >>> this requires that committers act with the best interests of the project >>> when they send out their code for reviews - but this is the behavior we >>> demand before someone is recognized as a committer, so I don't see why that >>> would be cause for concern. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>
