3 states for each step is effectively what I've been suggesting at the
very start. (initialize with question mark instead of red cross)
On 22.02.2019 14:19, Robert Metzger wrote:
I will try to deploy the first version using labels today.
Here are my responses to your comments:
The emojis seem unnecessary, the approved label could be shorted
to "Approved"; the
review prefix isn't necessary here imo.
My idea was that each system (review bot, component labeler, size
estimator) has its own prefix, that is managed only by the system.
The Guava project is doing this as well:
https://github.com/google/guava/pulls
also Kubernetes to some extend:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pulls
I'm still in favor of keeping "review=approved".
As another request, we may want to ignore flinkbot comments if
they come
from the person opening the PR.
This is on the TODO list. I will address it with the next big
development iteration. For now, it is up to the merger to make sure
that the approvals were given by the right persons.
but for the corresponding pictures, if need I can look for visual
design classmates to help. what do you think?
Afaik, we can not use custom emoji's on GitHub. Also, it seems that
the use of emojis is not very popular with the others here :)
Probably I am bit late to the party, but I just started using the
Flinkbot. A big +1 for having 3 states for each step. (Pending,
Approved, Rejected). Right now it is impossible to say that I
checked e.g. consensus and decided that the feature requires
further discussion.
Welcome to the party :)
Did somebody else suggest already 3 states for each step?
Since this is a bigger implementation effort, and requires additional
thinking about the semantics (what happens if we have conflicting
approvals etc.) I would suggest to add this to the TODO list, and have
a separate discussion with a full proposal?
As part of this, I also want to revisit the "attention" action.
The bot could check the diff and tag pull requests that only touch
the
docs as "Documentation". Many of these are easy to review and usually
don't require a deeper understanding of Flink.
Yes, I think we should automatically label pull requests such as:
hotfixes, documentation only, new contributors.
It's on my list.
For the labels, I will now go with the following:
review=description?
review=consensus?
review=architecture?
review=quality?
review=approved ✅
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:00 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org
<mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
The bot could check the diff and tag pull requests that only touch
the
docs as "Documentation". Many of these are easy to review and usually
don't require a deeper understanding of Flink.
On 13.02.2019 10:29, Robert Metzger wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> the flinkbot has been active for a week now, and I hope the
initial hiccups
> have been resolved :)
>
> I wanted to start this as a permanent thread to discuss problems and
> improvements with the bot.
>
> *So please post here if you have questions, problems or ideas how to
> improve it!*
>
