I think this is a great way of keeping things tidy. Thank you for the work being done here.
I have some thoughts to share: - About the tag `community-reviewed-required-deep-review`, would it be manually added or something @FlinkBot would be capable of doing? - How the committers/PMCs could rely on a `community-reviewed-LGTM` tag without needing to double-check the attribution? - Committers/PMCs could have a way to subscribe to paths that they'd like to review and get notified. - How could the community also help with creating consensus when needed? Is this something the CHI wants to tackle in the future? Att, Pedro Mázala On 2025/03/17 17:13:31 David Radley wrote: > Hi , > In the last Community Health > Initiative<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=345377343> > we talked of improving the Flink process to involve development review. > @Robert Metzger<ma...@apache.org> suggested I raise a Flip for this. Prior to > raising the Flip I would like to have a conversation on the dev list to see > what people thought and assess the support for this proposed change. > > Motivation for flip > There are many Flink contributors and fewer committers. As a community we > want to drive down our technical debt. The committers can be time strapped, > so may not have enough time to review every PR that comes in. There are > members of the community that are willing to review PRs and appropriately > share the review burden. This activity has been occurring under the Community > Health Initiative, where every new PR since the start of the group has been > reviewed / triaged. This proposal is to formally create a process where the > community (non-committers) can review PRs and ease the load on the > committers. The benefits of this approach are: > > * we formally encourage the community to review PRs - making this one of > the things we do as a community. > * encouraging the community to review will get more eyes on code changes. > * easing the burden of review for committers > * for straight forward PRs that the community approves of > * identify PRs if they need expert assessment > * community reviewing then becomes a way to contribute to Flink on the > road to becoming a committer. So, it is in the contributor’s interest to > review > * measuring community review activity gives us metrics to show its impact > and whether the process is working. > Proposal for Flip > Use Flinkbot commands to add new labels to indicate that the community has > reviewed a PR. > Suggested new labels > > * community-reviewed-LGTM > > This can be set if there are 2 committer approves > > * community-reviewed-required-deep-review > This could be set if 2 community members agree that a deep review is required. > > * Community-health-initiative-reviewed > > A tag to indicate that the Community Health Initiative has reviewed the PR > The by-produce of this process is that sanity checks (does the Jira have a > title – look right, does it have unit tests, code logic tests, does the Jira > have a decent description on what is being changed and why etc) will occur on > PRs generating lots of prompt feedback to the submitters of the PRs. Also it > is easier for committers to identify what PRs to review and merge easy > changes . > In the Community Health Initiative, we hope to move as much of the sanity > checking as possible to the Flink bot, where it can be automated. > One concern about this approach is that someone could unethically put the > community review labels onto PRs without having reviewed the PR. If we see > this is occurring, then we would use usual Apache processes to deal with > members of the community not behaving well. Any thoughts on this? > I am interested in what the community thinks about this idea, and will raise > a Flip to formally discuss and vote on if there is a support for it, > Kind regards, David. > > > > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, > Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN >
