Thanks Julian for sharing the proposal. I am +1 for it. I have been busy in the past few months, so I have only had a quick look at the new JIRA. However, I will have more time in the coming months, and I would be more than happy to review any pull requests.
Best, Chunwei On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:22 PM Jiajun Xie <jiajunbernou...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <libenc...@apache.org> 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 <cgi...@gmail.com> 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 <zoud...@163.com> 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 <jh...@apache.org> 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 > > >
