I was wondering how this relates to the shepherding of PRs we have discussed in the past. If I make a PR for an issue reported from a specific committer, doesn't tagging them make sense?
Has the shepherding of PRs been tried out? On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > It seems I'm in a bit of a minority here but I like the @R tags. There are > simply to many pull request for someone to keep track of all of them and if > someone things that a certain person would be good for reviewing a change > then tagging them helps them notice the PR. > > I think the tag should not mean that only that person can/should review the > PR, it should serve as a proposal. > > I'm happy to not use it anymore if everyone else doesn't like them. > > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 at 00:53 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Haohui, > > > > reviewing pull requests is a great way of contributing to the community! > > > > I am not aware of specific instructions for the review process. The are > > some dos and don'ts on our "contribute code" page [1] that should be > > considered. Apart from that, I think the best way to start is to become > > familiar with a certain part of the code base (reading code, > contributing) > > and then to look out for pull requests that address the part you are > > familiar with. > > > > The review does not have to cover all aspects of a PR (a committer will > > have a look as well), but from my personal experience the effort to > review > > a PR is often much lower if some other person has had a look at it > already > > and gave feedback. > > I think this can help a lot to reduce the review "load" on the > committers. > > Maybe you find some contributors who are interested in the same > components > > as you and you can start reviewing each others code. > > > > Thanks, > > Fabian > > > > [1] http://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#coding-guidelines > > > > > > 2017-01-20 23:02 GMT+01:00 jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I totally agree with all of your ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes， > > > > > > > > > > > > SunJincheng. > > > > > > Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>于2017年1月16日 周一19:42写道： > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen that recently many pull requests designate reviews by > > writing > > > > > > > > "@personA review please" or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am personally quite strongly against that, I think it hurts the > > > community > > > > > > > > work: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The same few people get usually "designated" and will typically > get > > > > > > > > overloaded and often not do the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - At the same time, this discourages other community members from > > > looking > > > > > > > > at the pull request, which is totally undesirable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - In general, review participation should be "pull based" (person > > > decides > > > > > > > > what they want to work on) not "push based" (random person pushes > work > > to > > > > > > > > another person). Push-based just creates the wrong feeling in a > > community > > > > > > > > of volunteers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - In many cases the designated reviews are not the ones most > > > > > > > > knowledgeable in the code, which is understandable, because how > should > > > > > > > > contributors know whom to tag? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Long story short, why don't we just drop that habit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
