+1 to just to reviewers, doesn’t need to be a PPMC -- Jason Porter Software Engineer He/Him/His
IBM From: Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 17:53 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PROPOSAL] Policy for code changes Ricardo, Here in Apache there is no concept of component leadership, it’s a flat structure that is basically [P]PMC and Committers. I’m ok to adjust for 2 committers for now. Would love to hear from others here if we got the consensus that it’s expected. In regard triage, there’s an option with .asf.yaml to have up to 10 users for triage. About the use of bots, any automation is more than welcome. However this needs to be developed and properly maintained. So I suggest to open a new email thread to discuss such topic. Alex On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 2:16 PM ricardo zanini fernandes < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 to what Mario just said. I was about to send the same email. > > For instance, at this moment I have 4 PRs waiting to be merged and with all > honesty, a PPMC will only give his "ok". So it's just a waste of their > time. Eder suggested having leads in each component, which makes a bit more > sense. Or just what you suggested, Alex: 2 commuters. We can adjust as we > go. > > The other point is that we should also have a group for triage or have a > bot to set reviewers automatically (via codeowners, maybe?). A few > contributors are asking for at least triage/resolve comments permissions. > Is that possible? > > Cheers! > -- > Ricardo Zanini Fernandes > Vida longa e próspera. > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 2:12 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mario, > > > > I think you have a very valid point, and I think this could be adjusted > by > > 2 committers. Another thing that we could take advantage in the future > is, > > giving the diverse and complex codebase, use codeowners [1] and balance > > better the code review among all the committers. > > > > [1] - > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:32 PM Mario Fusco <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > Sorry if I'm reading and replying to this email with so much delay. > > > > > > > • The other is from a PPMC member. > > > > > > In all honesty this specific constraint seems unnecessarily and > > > excessively restrictive to me. I'm afraid that waiting for an approval > > from > > > a so small group of persons for all the pull requests in all kie > projects > > > could become a serious bottleneck. In this way we may have pending pull > > > requests waiting for weeks or months. > > > > > > The other point of attention is that the whole kie codebase is quite > huge > > > and diverse. There could be no more than one person in the PPMC group > > with > > > the right competences to give an informed opinion on a specific pull > > > request. Or in some cases not even that one. Who will review an > operator > > > written in Go? And even for the core part of Drools (which of course is > > my > > > main concern) there could be only Mark to have an idea on how to > review a > > > pull request. And in some specific newer parts like the reliable > session > > or > > > the Quarkus integration maybe not even him. > > > > > > Do you have any opinion on this? > > > > > > Thanks for feedback, > > > Mario > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > >
