+1 (binding)
On 8 May 2017 at 11:55, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > There have been recent discussions about how the committers assess PRs for > merging. The discussion is summarised below and the original thread > available at [1]. > > The consensus of the discussion is to adopt new standards for committers > reviewing PRs, as follows: > > ------ > > If a PR has not been reviewed within a certain amount of time - suggested > to be 7 days, or less for smaller PRs - nor has a committer indicated that > they are doing a detailed review, then the PR shall be considered for a > less detailed review, an "eyeball test". > > Under an eyeball test, a reviewer will consider if the PR is: > * clearly helpful & not obviously wrong > * low-risk / doesn't break compatibility > * good test coverage (and passing) > * likely to be maintained > > If it passes the above criteria, then the reviewer will add a comment to > the PR, and ask if further review is appropriate, possibly tagging specific > committers who may be interested. Then if there is no objection within 72 > hours, passive consensus should be assumed, and the PR merged. > > If the PR does not pass the above criteria, the reviewer should say what > they have doubts about, suggest what the contributor could do to help, > and/or appeal to other committers more familiar with an area. If > appropriate, move from GitHub onto the mailing list. (The aim here is to > get a discussion going and not give the contributor the impression their PR > is being ignored.) > > ------ > > This vote is to decide if we wish to adopt these standards for all PR > reviews going forward, and to document these standards in our website. > > This vote will be open for a minimum of 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 - adopt this standard > [ ] 0 - no opinion > [ ] -1 - do not adopt this standard, because: > > ------ > > Background: > > This is related to the recent thread at [1]. > > Traditionally, this project has had a high bar for reviewing contributions > prior to merging. This dates back to the project's inception, before it was > part of Apache. Reviewers would be expected to inspect the code and > personally test it before allowing it to be merged. > > There has been concern expressed that this is holding back Brooklyn > development. Reviewing a PR can be time-consuming; often a detailed review > requires expert knowledge in a particular area of the code which only some > committers possess. The result is that PRs, especially larger ones or ones > in core areas of the project, do not receive timely review, and in some > cases languish far too long. This is bad for the project as it holds back > our velocity, and frustrates contributors who see their changes stuck in > the system for extended lengths of time. > > Since we joined the ASF, we have had feedback from others with experience > in Apache that we are too conservative with our code review requirements. > We also recognise the value in automated testing to catch regressions > (although these constantly need work, of course), and in our Git source > control to enable us to revert changes that turn out to be particularly > problematic. We can relax our strict reviewing requirements, which will > increase our velocity, and show our contributors that their work is > receiving attention and getting merged. Should a merge prove to be > problematic, their is still opportunity to do a bug fix (and get it merged > under the same fast process, too), and ultimately the chance to "revert" > the merge if necessary. > > So we believe that the quality of the finished product will not be > adversely affected by these changes. > > > [1]https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4398448fd548495a5159016a97afa1 > 2dd787ab34786b3bbc0881d5b4@%3Cdev.brooklyn.apache.org%3E > > Thanks > Richard. > >
