+1 On 8 May 2017 at 11:55, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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. > > > > >
