If someone is trusted enough to review a committers code shouldn't they also be trusted enough to review another contributors code? As a non-committer I would get much quicker reviews if I could have other non-committers do the review, then get a committer who trusts us to merge.
Andrew On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:03 AM Henning Rohde <hero...@google.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:55 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 to the goal of increasing review bandwidth >> >> In addition to the proposed reviewer requirement change, perhaps there >> are other ways to contribute towards that goal as well? >> >> The discussion so far has focused on how more work can get done with the >> same pool of committers or how committers can get their work done faster. >> But ASF is really about "community over code" and in that spirit maybe we >> can consider how community growth can lead to similar effects? One way I >> can think of is that besides code contributions existing committers and >> especially the PMC members can help more towards growing the committer >> base, by mentoring contributors and helping them with their contributions >> and learning the ASF way of doing things. That seems a way to scale the >> project in the long run. >> >> I'm not super excited about the concepts of "owner" and "maintainer" >> often found in (non ASF) projects like Kenn mentions. Depending on the >> exact interpretation, these have the potential of establishing an >> artificial barrier and limiting growth/sustainability in the contributor >> base. Such powers tend to be based on historical accomplishments vs. >> current situation. >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 à 06:17 -0700, Robert Burke a écrit : >>> >>> +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. >>> >>> Yes me too, I thought exactly the same >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>
