Here's a common use case that we should address: A single PR may require
two reviews, one for code and another for docs, before it can be said to be
fully reviewed and ready to merge.
Points to consider:
- Many PRs, especially those introducing new features or user-settable
properties, include both code and docs. "Docs" includes updates to the user
guide sources, but also code comments that are consumed by community
developers and are included in the auto-generated API documentation.
Parameter name choices, explanations, spelling and grammar need to be right.
- Reviews of code and docs require different skills, so a good-quality
PR review in such cases benefits from multiple reviewers, (at least) one
for code, and (at least) one for docs.
- [My key concern] Current protocol is 1 reviewer approval qualifies the
PR for merging. I flag my doc reviews in such cases with a note to the
submitter saying something like "Docs reviewed and approved; technical
review still needed before merging". But a submitter who's eager to merge
may just see green and go for it, without reading the caveat. I'm against
enforcing a multiple-review requirement. What I would like to see is a
status for partial approval, so I can register my approval without
prematurely opening the door to a code merge.
- Other considerations:
- There are PRs that don't fit this two-part use case. Many PRs are
code-only, with no doc component. Conversely, some PRs are
docs-only, with
no code component.
- PRs often are not recognized as falling into this two-part use
case. Submitters of JIRA tickets may not know whether the solution to the
problem they're reporting will affect docs. Submitter of the PR
addressing
the JIRA ticket may not think to add the 'docs' component to the related
JIRA ticket or to request a doc reviewer when creating the PR.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:41 AM Robert Houghton <rhough...@vmware.com>
wrote:
> There are some pieces of Apache infrastructure we can control without
> needing tickets: Specifically
> required_pull_request_reviews:
> dismiss_stale_reviews: true
> require_code_owner_reviews: true
>
> I think these specific controls could go a long way towards helping keep
> our PR quality high, while reducing cognitive load for the reviewers.
>
> Full documentation here<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features#git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection
> >
>
>
>
> From: Bruce Schuchardt <bru...@vmware.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 8:10 AM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette
> -1
> While I often use the Draft option I don't see why we want to add even
> more rules about how we use github. I think it's enough to put in a PR and
> then add reviewers when you're ready for comments. Getting the stink-eye
> for putting up a non-Draft PR is just going to make it more difficult to
> attract and retain new contributors.
>
> On 10/27/20, 5:41 PM, "Udo Kohlmeyer" <u...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Apache Geode Devs,
> It is really great going through all the PRs that been submitted. As
> Josh Long is known to say: "I work for PRs".
> Whilst going through some of the PRs I do see that there are many PRs
> that have multiple commits against the PR.
> I know that the PR submission framework kicks off more testing than we
> do on our own local machines. It is extremely uncommon to submit a PR the
> first time and have all tests go green. Which h means we invariably iterate
> over commits to make the build go green.
> In this limbo time period, it is hard for any reviewer to know when
> the ticket is ready to be reviewed.
> I want to propose that when submitting a PR, it is initially submitted
> as a DRAFT PR. This way, all test can still be run and work can be done to
> make sure "green" is achieved. Once "green" status has been achieved, the
> draft can then be upgraded to a final PR by pressing the "Ready For Review"
> button. At this point all commits on the branch can then once again be
> squashed into a single commit.
> Now project committers will now know that the PR is in a state that it
> can be reviewed for completeness and functionality.
> In addition, it will help tremendously helpful if anyone submitting a
> PR monitors their PR for activity. If there is no activity for a few days,
> please feel free to ping the Apache Geode Dev community for review. If
> review is request, please prioritize some time to address the feedback, as
> reviewers spend time reviewing code and getting an understanding what the
> code is doing. If too much time goes by, between review and addressing the
> review comments, not only does the reviewer lose context, possibly
> requiring them to spend time again to understand what the code was/is
> supposed to do, but also possibly lose interest, as the ticket has now
> become cold or dropped down the list of PRs.
> There are currently many PRs that are in a cold state, where the time
> between review and response has been so long, that both parties (reviewer
> and submitter) have forgotten about the PR.
> In the case that the reviews will take more time to address than
> expected, please downgrade the PR to draft status again. At this point, it
> does not mean that reviewers will not be able to help anymore, as you can
> request a reviewer to help with feedback and comments, until one feels that
> the PR is back in a state of final submission.
> So, what I'm really asking from the Dev Community:
> If you submit a PR, it would be great if you can nudge the
> community if there is no review on the PR. If feedback is provided on a PR,
> please address it as soon as possible. This not only will help the PR
> progress faster, but it will shorten the feedback loop.
> Finally, start with a DRAFT PR and then upgrade to a final PR
> when you feel it is in a "good" state. If more work is required, it is ok
> to downgrade back to a draft, until one feels the PR is in a good state
> again.
> Managing the PR process in this manner, will be hugely beneficial for
> all community members. As reviewers will know when a PR is ready to be
> reviewed. Reviewers will also feel more engaged in this process, due to
> timely response to their review comments. PR submitters will feel happier,
> in the knowledge that the code they spent so long meticulously crafting
> will possibly make it into the project.
> Any thoughts?
> --Udo
>
>
