Hi Alberto! I haven’t looked at PR review throughput metrics. I know that is certainly an interesting measure to keep an eye on w.r.t to the CODEOWNERS / CODEWATCHERS processes. I think another equally interesting metric is the “quality” of PR reviews. This is difficult to measure but you could think of a continuum such as:
Level 0: I reviewed the PR and gave you a thumbs up just because Level 1: I reviewed the PR and I like the names and code formatting Level 2: I reviewed the PR and I checked that the change has the intended effect Level 3: I reviewed the PR and I checked that there is sufficient testing so it’s safe to merge Level 4: I reviewed the PR and I believe this change is aligned with the goals of the project and its architecture (Of course these are just examples) If the CODEOWNERS process is moving PR reviews to a higher “level” I could see that the time and effort could increase, particularly for complex and large changes. Overall I would argue that’s a good thing for a project like Geode that has lots of intrinsic complexity in the source code and domain. IMHO, Anthony > On Mar 17, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Alberto Gomez <alberto.go...@est.tech> wrote: > > Hi, > > It's been more than two months since the CODEOWNERS file has been in place to > automatically add reviewers to pull requests. While we have seen the great > benefit of having the experts in the matter being automatically assigned as > reviewers to each pull request, I have the feeling that the review process is > taking longer now. Some possible reasons could be: > 1. Some code owners might be getting more reviews than they can cope with and > they have become a bottleneck. > 2. While prior to this change only two approvals were necessary, with the new > process the number of approvals from reviewers required to approve a pull > request can be much higher than two, depending on the number of areas touched > by the PR. > > Again, this might just be my feeling or something incidental and only related > to the pull requests I have been working on. In any case, I would like to > know if others are experiencing this slowdown in the review of their pull > requests. > > Also, I do not know if there are metrics available for the review process. > For example, the average time taken since a pull request is submitted or a > change is made on it until there is a review. Having these types of metrics > would be very useful because they would allow us to evaluate this mechanism > from perspectives other than the quality of the reviews and to propose > corrective actions if necessary. > > Best regards, > > Alberto
