Thank Julian for your idea. Your plan helps to motivate new contributors. “If there is no response to my PR, I will be disappointed or even give up on continuing to contribute.”
I hope that every contributor will be encouraged, and I also hope that the Calcite community will become stronger and stronger. +1, I am willing to join the pool of reviews. On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 13:20, Benchao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Julian for starting the discussion! > > I'm spending my spare time to contribute to Calcite, usually at weekends, > and sometimes in the break of weekdays, hence my time would be limited > because the spare time may varies. Review work is not that simple for me > because Calcite has many complicated components and evolves many years > which means we need track a lot of background. I'm still learning some part > while doing the review work. > > The complexity of PRs varies a lot, simple ones would be easier to get in > because it only cost me minutes to hours to review. But the complex ones, > usually I need to spend more time to understand the background, new design, > the effect to the whole project, and the future direction we want to take. > These kinds of PRs may be preempted by small ones, and finally do not > getting reviewed for months, there is a example[1] which I would say sorry > to the author that I still do not manage to give it a review till today. > > Any way to improve current status would be grateful. However, if the > proposal from Julian may require more sustainable time, I'm not sure if it > is suitable for guys like me who only devotes limited spare time to > Calcite. Hence I'm +0 for this proposal. Of course, I would be happy to > participate in the schema if we finally decide to do it. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5413 > > Charles Givre <[email protected]> 于2023年4月11日周二 12:43写道： > > > I for one would very much like to help with reviews. I don't have a lot > > of time this month, but next month should have more time. > > Best, > > -- C > > > > > On Apr 10, 2023, at 10:56 PM, Dan Zou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +1, thanks Julian for proposing this. From my observation, there are > > many pending PRs in Calcite and only a few active committers, this puts a > > lot of pressure on these committers. For example Julian have reviewed 34 > PR > > in 2023 Q1, it is an unimaginable number. I am very supportive of > achieving > > a mechanism to improve the review efficiency of PRs, and also I would > like > > to make contribution in reviewing PRs. > > > > > > Best, > > > Dan Zou > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2023年4月11日 01:56，Julian Hyde <[email protected]> 写道： > > >> > > >> I don't enjoy reviewing and merging PRs. And every time I do, I feel > > >> like a sucker, because there are over a few dozen committers who are > > >> enjoying the project and not doing the work. (There is a small group > > >> of committers who regularly review and merge PRs. I don't know how > > >> they feel about the task, but I am immensely grateful.) > > >> > > >> I think I would review more PRs if I saw others doing the same. > > >> > > >> Can we figure out a fairer way to distribute the load? For release > > >> managers (approximately the same amount of work, but compressed into a > > >> few hours or days) we have successfully run a rota for several years. > > >> Could we do something similar with PRs? > > >> > > >> I propose the following. For each calendar month, there is a PR > > >> manager and 6 - 8 reviewers. The PR manager does not review PRs, but > > >> assigns them to reviewers, and politely reminds reviews to keep the PR > > >> moving. > > >> > > >> The PR manager's goals are: > > >> * every non-draft PR is reviewed within 3 days of submission, > > >> * every PR is merged within 3 days of being done; > > >> * rotate duties so that no reviewer is asked to review more than 4 > > >> PRs per month; > > >> * email a report at the end of the month; > > >> * work down the backlog of historic PRs if it's a slow month. > > >> > > >> The PR manager rotates every month. The reviewers can rotate if they > > >> wish, but I suspect most will stay in the pool for several months, > > >> because the reviewing load is not very heavy, and because they see > > >> others doing the work. > > >> > > >> Other notes: > > >> * Non-committers would be welcome to join the pool of reviews (and > > >> that would be a good way to earn the committer bit) and a committer > > >> could merge when the PR is approved. > > >> * If committers join the pool, that's a good way to earn PMC > membership. > > >> * Committers who are not in the pool are welcome to review PRs and > > >> assign PRs to themselves (but expect to be nagged by the PR manager if > > >> you don't review in a timely manner). > > >> > > >> What do you think? Would you join this scheme if we introduced it? If > > >> you agree please +1; also happy to see revisions to this suggestion or > > >> other ideas to share the work. > > >> > > >> Julian > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best, > Benchao Li >
