Thank you Huygaa. This document looks good to me. I think auto-assigning PRs could significantly help especially with first time contributors. It could also give us a chance to distribute reviews in a more balanced way across committers.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Alexey Romanenko <aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: > Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one of > the main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR. > > Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively > should help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all. > > Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only > about 90 opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but > others are quite inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts > to review their status before they will be closed automatically by stale > bot. > > Alexey > > > On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also a > comment about public communication. > > Etienne > > Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit : > > Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of > > automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via > > https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; I > added some comments in the doc. > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > > > Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 > before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I can > imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 6 > month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like > ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: Spark > has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150. > > > Kenn > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com> wrote: > > > I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some > feedback and thoughts: > > > For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we can > learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be ideal > to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people working on > this). > > I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various > areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like > it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier time > working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce great > code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on functionality > and scale discussions, not style, which is published). > > I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community have > various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid to work > on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time and > talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead > empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose to > say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email reminders > and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust reviewers to > be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" -- "I can't > commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", for example. > > > I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and promote > the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow the > project as fast as we want. > > > r > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan <bat...@google.com> wrote: > > > Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage of > review tools, dashboards, and metrics. > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > > > So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and > in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll share > my proposal doc with the dev list soon. > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan <bat...@google.com> wrote: > > > Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process based > on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to propose > improvement ideas. Please take a look at: > https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review. > > > Main proposals suggested in the doc are: > > > Create a code review guideline document. > > Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam. > > Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health. > > > Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of > suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code review > tools etc. > > > Thanks so much, > > Huygaa > > >
