Yes, it sounds good. Let's see what the others are thinking. Thanks, Regards JB
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:33 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, > I would call them "subtasks" with one GH issue per task and track all the > subtasks from the proposal template GH issue. > PRs can be mapped to respective subtasks. > > I will open a PR to update the proposal template if we have consensus. > > - Ajantha > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: >> >> Hi Ajantha >> >> It's a good idea. Why not extending the proposal process we have ? We >> can add the "roadmap/PRs" lists in a comment in the proposal issue. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:11 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hey everyone, >> > >> > We have several active projects, such as Views, multi-table transactions, >> > Kafka Connect, and partition stats, etc., where proposals have been >> > approved but implementation is still ongoing. >> > Most of these proposals will involve multiple PRs, making it difficult to >> > monitor progress and identify pending tasks. >> > >> > Some progress is being tracked here: >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/projects?type=classic. >> > However, only committers can update this, making it challenging for >> > non-committers to contribute. Also, currently it only covers a few >> > proposals and it is not actively maintained. >> > >> > As a workaround for partition stats, I've set up a task tracker that's >> > easy to update without requiring extra permissions: >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/8450 >> > >> > I suggest standardizing a method for tracking progress on ongoing >> > proposals. >> > We could potentially integrate the chosen mechanism with the proposal >> > issue template >> > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/6x324jlyf7hy0j0slzgg8v08vmb9zj0s). >> > >> > Please share any ideas or your thoughts on standardizing this process. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ajantha
