Anton,
Thank you for explanation. Personal ask instead of group broadcast may really help. I understand the idea now. One argument against solution way 1) it may be not easy for contributor, especially newcomer, to find a right person. What do you think about way 2? Personally, I'm ready to help with analysis and assignment of these 66 tasks from next week. вт, 6 июн. 2017 г. в 12:57, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>: > Dmitry Pavlov, > > There is *HUGE *difference between "Devlist, please review my changes" > and "Dmitry Pavlov, please review my changes". > > In case you're busy right now, you'll, most likely, ignore appeal to > devlist, but, I'm pretty sure, you'll check appeal to yourself. > Am I right? > > So, my idea is: appeal to devlist is a useless spam maker approach, but > appeal to person(s) works. > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Wow, we have 66 tickets waiting for review.... this is pretty bad. > > Something must definitely change. > > > > From my side, having a contributor shop around for a reviewer is not > really > > fair. However, I would support the idea of Apache Ignite community > electing > > a person responsible to find reviewers for all contributions. > > > > D. > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 1) There is waiting for review list here > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > Issues+waiting+for+review > > > > > > 2) some of contributions are supplemented by dev-list messages (please > > > review my PR…) > > > > > > > > > And these two tools sometimes do not help. I suppose it is because of > > > reviewers already have some things to do, but not because of lack of > tool > > > support. Do you have other explanations? > > > > > > > > > But still, Igor’s suggestion to notify to dev list sounds reasonable to > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, could it solve your requirement to know about issue needed to > > > review? > > > > > > пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 21:06, Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > By the way, there are emails being sent from Jira to devlist every > > > > time someone adds comment to ticket, or, for example, edits its > > > > title which helps a lot to keep a track of ticket's state. > > > > > > > > But by some reason there is no such notification when ticket silently > > > > getting moved to "Patch available" state. I believe, that would help > if > > > > there was a notification for that. Is it possible to configure? > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In general, I tend to agree with Anton that something needs to be > > > changed > > > > > in this direction. > > > > > > > > > > How many of you flip through dev list, JIRA or GitHub notifications > > in > > > an > > > > > attempt to find tickets that demand your attention? I bet the > > > percentage > > > > is > > > > > pretty low. > > > > > > > > > > To solve this issue I see two options: > > > > > 1) Proposed by Anton. > > > > > 2) Having a guy in the community who’ll keep an eye on all the > > incoming > > > > > pull-requests shuffling them between committer in the same way > > proposed > > > > in > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I’m for 1. > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Dmitry Pavlov < > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ok for me if it is advice and hint for faster review, as it > > is > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can periodically remind about this opportunity at dev list or > in > > > the > > > > > > issue comments. We can remind that tasks in patch available > status > > > may > > > > be > > > > > > reassigned by contributor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking from prospective of overall throughput: it is not clear > for > > > me > > > > > how > > > > > > this process change will help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 20:16, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Vova, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Contributors interested to make contributions and I propose them > > to > > > > use > > > > > >> *same* strategy as we (people inside the community) use. > > > > > >> "-1" will not solve this issue, but my "tips" will. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dmitry, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The main problem here is that nobody notified that someone is > > > waiting > > > > > for > > > > > >> the review. > > > > > >> It's not a problem for me to provide tips or to make review, but > > > it's > > > > > >> problem to periodically check is there somebody waiting. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Guys, > > > > > >> Let's try this approach, and I'm pretty sure it will help. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hi Igniters, Anton, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Let’s imagine that development process as a chain of production > > > > stages > > > > > >>> 1) Developing patch by contributor > > > > > >>> 2) Review changes by committer > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Reviews waiting too long time to be done at stage 2 may > indicate > > > that > > > > > >> speed > > > > > >>> (potential throughput) of step 2 is less than throughput at > step > > 1. > > > > > T2<T1 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In terms of this model (inspired by Goldratt’s Theory of > > > Constraints > > > > > >>> (TOC)), I have a question: > > > > > >>> Will this responsibility movement (to find appropriate reviewer > > to > > > > > >>> contributor) help us to increase overall throughput? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> If we agree constraint in terms of TOC is throughput T2, I > > suggest > > > > > >>> following steps > > > > > >>> - Increase the throughput T2 of the committers > > > > > >>> - Reduce the load on the committers by improve quality of code > > > after > > > > > >> stage > > > > > >>> 1 given to review (pre review by non-committer, automatic > review, > > > > code > > > > > >>> inspections) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 18:28, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Igniters, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Currently, according to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > > > > > >>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-SubmittingforReview > > > > > >>>> , > > > > > >>>> contributor can ask for review by moving ticket to PATCH > > AVAILABLE > > > > > >> state. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> And, as far as I can see, this cause broken tickets issue. > > > > > >>>> Contributor can wait somebody who'll review his changes for a > > > month > > > > or > > > > > >>> even > > > > > >>>> more. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I propose to change workflow and *make contributor responsible > > to > > > > find > > > > > >>>> reviewer*. > > > > > >>>> It's pretty easy to find a person able to review changes in > most > > > of > > > > > >>> cases. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> 1) You can check git history of files you modified and find > > > persons > > > > > >> with > > > > > >>>> expertise in this code > > > > > >>>> 2) In case you have problems with such search you can always > use > > > > > >>>> maintainers list ( > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > > > > > >>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers > > > > > >>>> ) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Thoughts? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
